Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Tottenham in the room of Bernard Alexander Montgomery Grant, Esquire, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Abattoirs

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future role of small abattoirs in the rural economy. [122400]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government recognise the importance of small and specialist abattoirs to the rural economy. We have therefore put in place a number of measures to help small and medium-sized abattoirs, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls, the freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges for 1999-2000 and an increase confined to the rate of inflation for the current year, a review of the level of inspection in low throughput abattoirs, and setting up a taskforce to explore a capping approach to meat hygiene charges for small abattoirs.

Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the fact that small abattoirs are going out of business right, left and centre and that many of them will not survive another year, will the Government use their considerable influence with the Meat Hygiene Service and others to ensure that cost

recovery for inspections in abattoirs is moved to a headage payment system, as happens elsewhere in Europe? That would guard against further disadvantaging small rural abattoirs, producers, animal welfare, consumer choice on organic and locally produced meat, and the preservation of rare breeds.

Ms Quin: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns and I know that there are several small abattoirs in her constituency or the surrounding area. I hope that she will welcome the reviews of meat hygiene prices and of the Meat Hygiene Service, both of which were important elements in the action plan for farming announced by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister at the end of March. She charges us with causing the closure of abattoirs right, left and centre, but the majority of abattoir closures took place under the Conservative Government. It would not be possible for us to close as many abattoirs as the Conservatives did even if we wanted to—which we do not—because there are not that many left.

Mr. David Drew: May I concentrate on regulation? Anyone with connections with the trade knows that there is a problem. The tension can be seen by anyone who visits an abattoir. How will the Food Standards Agency impact on the operation of the Meat Hygiene Service, and how likely is a reduction in the level of regulation?

Ms Quin: The Food Standards Agency is taking the issue seriously. The reviews encourage a reduction in regulation. Ministers have a responsibility to negotiate with our European partners to reduce unnecessary regulation and ensure that the regulations that are necessary are as simple and straightforward as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, we are pursuing a number of initiatives on that.

Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the changes in the Meat Hygiene Service charges. Is it not time to quicken the pace in reacting to the reports of the red tape working parties? The Pooley report was published in December. In February, the Government announced that they accepted a large number of its recommendations. When will the pace of bringing in those recommendations be increased so that we see real action on the ground? Is there a firm timetable so that we can know when all the recommendations will be realised in farmers' daily lives?

Ms Quin: We are making a lot of progress on the measures that we announced and the timetable that we are working to. The independently chaired taskforce to look at meat inspection charges is to report by the end of this month. The red tape review, including the Pooley recommendations, was always designed to be taken forward quickly. The last thing that we wanted in setting up the red tape review was to start another long, bureaucratic procedure. The way in which the red tape review reported and the timetables that were subsequently proposed show that we are serious about addressing those issues.
Of course, some of the issues are not entirely within our control, because they involve European negotiations. On that front, too, we are vigorously pursuing the points that require further developments at European level.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Now that the responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service has passed to Health Ministers, can the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that her Department will be much more robust and aggressive in defence of rural abattoirs, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)?

Ms Quin: Given the measures to which I referred in my original reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have already undertaken a considerable number of initiatives and important measures—for example, in terms of the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls. That is worth some £44 million—a considerable amount. However, the hon. Gentleman makes the good point that giving responsibility to Health Ministers allows us, as Agriculture Ministers, to look at the issues of how farmers and rural communities are affected, without any suggestion of a clash of interests, and therefore I welcome it.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: In order to help the hard-pressed abattoir sector, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to relax the restrictions on the date-based export scheme? When did the Minister last raise with the French Government their illegal ban on British beef? Will she confirm that this matter will be discussed with the French Agricultural Minister in the meeting scheduled for tomorrow?

Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, representations have been made on many occasions in private meetings at the margins of Agriculture Councils, in public and in the French media about the illegality of the action that the French have taken. However, that action is now before the courts. Commissioner Byrne has said that he wants the process to take place as quickly as possible. We believe that the French will lose the case, and those are the procedures that should be adopted.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to accuse us of being dilatory in respect of the Meat Hygiene Service, or in our action with the French. This Government's record in promoting and getting accepted the date-based export scheme and in getting the ban on British beef lifted in a large number of countries—I recently produced figures on how many more countries have lifted the ban as a result of our efforts—bears favourable comparison with the pathetically slow progress made by the previous Government.

Pig Industry

Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on profitability in the pig sector. [122401]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Market prices for pigs continue to recover, having risen by 25 per cent. since the end of January. With the market price at around 95p per

kilogram, most pig producers will be breaking even, at least. The measures that the Government have taken to help the sector have helped to bring about this outcome.

Mr. Leigh: Twenty-four thousand jobs have been lost in this sector. The problem with the pig industry has not been that it is inefficient—it is not—but is that it must abide by animal welfare standards that do not apply to its competitors. Does the Minister acknowledge that his restructuring grant may actually lead to more jobs being lost? How does he intend to use the grant, and to what purpose? Is not the real problem with the industry the fact that imports do not have to abide by these standards? What is he going to do about it? Will he be tougher? Can he imagine the French putting up with this sort of behaviour? We want a Minister who is less nice and acts more like a Frenchman.

Mr. Brown: Bonjour, Madam Speaker. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to these exchanges, to which you have been treated at just about every Agriculture questions for almost a year now. The answers to his questions are well known. The real problem in the sector is twofold—supply exceeds demand and the classic pig cycle has plummeted, and that recession has been prolonged. To help the industry through the recession, the Government have taken a range of actions with which most hon. Members will be familiar, because we have discussed them at great length.
The one measure that the hon. Gentleman urges on the Government—economic protectionism—would be illegal and would invite retaliation and a court case that would incur considerable costs for the British taxpayer. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I can tell him—as most hon. Members will have heard me say before—that the best advice available to the Government has been placed in the Library for all hon. Members to see. He advocates a measure that would not work and, worse than that, would do considerable harm to the industry. The constructive approach that the Government have taken, to work with the industry to devise measures to get it through the crisis, has been widely welcomed by the industry and, as the facts show, is having some success.

Mr. Paul Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that the price has risen and that what we should do next is reduce costs in the supply chain, add value to the British market and develop marketing in Europe? Those are not my words, but those of Mr. Mick Sloan from the British Pig Executive, reported in the Farmers Guardian this week. Those are the steps that are necessary, not the illegal activities promised by the Tories, which would ruin the industry.

Mr. Brown: There is no protectionist solution to the problem. The answer for the industry is to get closer to the marketplace. We have worked closely with the industry to get it to work together, rather than just as individual businesses, and to bring it closer to its real customers. I also welcome the Meat and Livestock Commission campaign which has just been launched to bring home to British consumers the real difference between the strong


animal welfare measures that we have in place and competitors' products. The battle will be won in the supermarkets.

Mr. Michael Jack: Sadly, Winnie the pig has left Parliament square and the fount of all our knowledge and wisdom on the subject has gone. Before the pig went, a question was raised with me about research and development in the industry, and the fact that the Minister's package of help measures does not appear to include anything to assist further improvements in the way in which the British industry operates. Has he any positive proposals to put to the House on that matter today?

Mr. Brown: The industry operates efficiently and it has a good story to tell on meat and bonemeal and on animal welfare. The right hon. Gentleman is making a bid for my research and development programme. If the industry submits projects, they will be considered as other bids are considered and will take their place in the priorities. When the industry applied for marketing support, it received the overwhelming bulk of the support that was available. We are willing to consider bids from the industry across the range of the different projects that the Department sponsors.

Pet Travel Scheme

Dr. Doug Naysmith: What representations he has received from pet owners concerning the operation of the pet travel scheme. [122402]

Dr. Nick Palmer: What steps he is taking to ensure that pet owners are fully aware of the requirements of the pet travel scheme. [122404]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We have received numerous representations on the pet travel scheme. The helpline and website are widely advertised in the national press and have been widely used. In addition, every veterinary practice has been sent fact sheets and posters.

Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for ensuring that pet owners in this country are aware of the pilot scheme. When will the full scheme be rolled out, and can she speculate as to when it will be extended to other countries?

Ms Quin: We aim to implement the full scheme by early next year and I hope that that will be achieved on time. Originally, the existing pilot was estimated to take up to three years, but the Government delivered it in half that time, so we have a good record in that respect. The last time the issue of extension to other countries was raised in the House, the question related to Cyprus. I understand that all problems have been resolved, and it will be possible to include Cyprus in the main scheme. I welcome that, because it is important for our service personnel.

Dr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the scheme has received very broad support so far from those who have participated in it? There is considerable enthusiasm at the fact that the Government have broken

the logjam at last. Is she aware that reservations remain about the extent of the additional vaccination that is needed, and especially about the short time scale available for that before pets re-enter the country? Does she accept that a balance must be struck between the scheme and the need to protect the population against infection? Will she review these matters carefully when the pilot scheme ends?

Ms Quin: We do monitor the scheme. Before the main scheme is introduced, we shall review the results of the pilot scheme in the various areas that my hon. Friend has set out. However, the measures to which he has referred—in particular, the tick and tapeworm treatment, and the time scale available for it—have been chosen for good animal health reasons. The aim is to prevent the importation to this country of contagious diseases and of diseases that we do not have and do not want.

Mr. John Bercow: What is the expected administrative cost of the pet travel scheme? On the principle that Ministers ought to practise what they preach, at least in a leap year, will the right hon. Lady tell the House which Ministers have expressed an interest in participating in the scheme? Specifically, has she heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he expects his dog Bobby to be an early beneficiary?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We believe that all Ministers, as well as all citizens of this country, are eligible to benefit from the pet scheme. It is not surprising, therefore, that all people, apart from one or two Conservative Members, should have welcomed the scheme as they have. The pilot scheme has proved very effective, and we want to make sure that we learn the lessons from it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about administrative costs. Although I do not have our cost estimates with me, I shall certainly make them available to the House, as I do not want to quote a figure off the top of my head today only to have to correct it later. We believe that the scheme has been well worth while, and that the costs to citizens are far lower than the costs of quarantine. Quarantine caused a lot of misery, and was an extremely expensive system.

Mr. Bob Russell: Would the Minister agree that the British sovereign bases in Cyprus should be included in the scheme?

Ms Quin: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, or whether he was simply not listening earlier when I announced that the problems in relation to Cyprus had been resolved. We look forward to Cyprus being part of the full scheme.

Countryside Stewardship Scheme

Judy Mallaber: What evaluation he has made of the value of the countryside stewardship scheme to rural conservation. [122403]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We believe, as do most environmental organisations, that the countryside stewardship scheme is of considerable


value to rural conservation and I recently announced a significant expansion to the sector. An independent study to assess the environmental benefits of the scheme in more detail is due to report shortly.

Judy Mallaber: I agree with my hon. Friend that the countryside stewardship scheme is of great value to rural conservation. It is also a valuable source of income for hard-pressed farmers. The Ministry has told me that, at present, there is only one such scheme in Amber Valley. What steps has my hon. Friend taken to make sure that farmers in Amber Valley and throughout the country are able to have access to countryside stewardship?

Mr. Morley: The schemes are very popular, and until recently they have been heavily over-subscribed. Thanks to the measures announced under the rural development programme, we will be able to increase the number of applicants to the scheme from 1,600 last year to 3,000 in the coming year. I have emphasised the benefits of the scheme in meetings with farmers, and many farm and environmental organisations have stressed those benefits too. I have no hesitation in asserting that many more farmers will want to join the scheme, and I am sure that many will be from my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that there is a catch in the small print of the scheme? Income is based on income forgone, which means that if the market price of cereals, for example, falls, farmers will lose money. Indeed, Strutt & Parker has estimated that farmers who enter the scheme will be worse off than those who stay out of it.

Mr. Morley: I would like to see those figures, because I do not think that that is necessarily the case. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that the scheme is based on income forgone, although I do not think that that is the best method of calculation. Nevertheless, that is the European rule.
We are aware of the implications for farmers when their incomes fall and prices go down. Logically, the payments based on those incomes should go down with them as well. We have, however, taken a reasonable and balanced view, and tried to cushion farmers from the worst effects of the changes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this type of scheme is essential in areas of the Pennines like mine, where land is extremely difficult to farm? It is wild and rugged, but very beautiful, and farmers can be helped considerably by the scheme.

Mr. Morley: I can confirm that. Areas in my hon. Friend's constituency benefit particularly from stewardship schemes. They have the flexibility to cope with different regions, demands and areas. I am glad to say that the Government will be increasing spending in real terms by £16 million every year for the next seven years.

Mr. James Paice: It is a pity that the Minister did not say that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the stewardship scheme. We are very proud of the way in which it has developed.
Will the Minister confirm that, as of next year, many of our hedgerows will be under threat from the 2 m rule, which still stands to be implemented for the next cropping year? Would it not be better to amalgamate the set-aside scheme with the country stewardship scheme in terms of headlands, allowing a narrower width for set-aside, so that all farmers could be encouraged to convert their headlands to conservation set-aside, and bring some simplicity to arrangements that confuse many farmers trying to work out which way to go forward?

Mr. Morley: On the first point, the Government are increasing spending on agri-environmental schemes by £1 billion over the next seven years. We could perhaps have increased it even more, were it not for the fact that the European Union contribution towards the rural development programme is 3.5 per cent., based on historically low levels of spending on countryside programmes by the previous Government.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is a real threat to field boundaries from the Commission's proposals. Thanks to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Minister with Franz Fischler, we have managed to get a year's grace in which to put forward proposals to deal with the point from the auditors that the area of land that was cropped is less than that which is being claimed for arable aid payments. That is because of historical cropping patterns in this country.
We want to look at a number of options, such as a more flexible use of set-aside land. We invited Commissioners to look at our proposals in March. They have been over, and we await their response to our ideas.

Mr. David Taylor: It is true, as the Minister says, that the doubling of funding for countryside stewardship from the niggardly levels bequeathed us by the previous Administration has been warmly welcomed by such organisations as English Nature and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am a member. Does he agree that this a worthwhile step towards obtaining modern and efficient financial support for farming and countryside development? Is he hopeful that we can take more substantial steps by thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy in similar ways?

Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend that, under this Government, spending on countryside programmes has increased by 60 per cent., compared with under the previous Government. In relation to the common agricultural policy, there is no doubt that we need to move funds away from production-based support into agri-environment-based support and support for the wider countryside and rural economy. That is our objective. We have made some progress by putting in place the rural development programme, but we recognise that there is more to do in relation to reforming the CAP, and we are committed to doing that.

Madam Speaker: Question 6.

Mr. James Clappison: Has the Minister seen the letter in today's—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Thanks for the clue about the supplementary question, but I had anticipated it.

Arable Farming Subsidies

Mr. Clappison: What recent representations he has received about the use of subsidies for arable farming. [122405]

Mr. Brown: A number of representations have been received about the position of arable farmers in the United Kingdom. Arable farmers receive more than £1 billion in direct aid payments each year. The arable market continues to be supported by intervention and export refunds. In addition, arable farmers have just received £170 million in agrimonetary aid and will receive a further £57 million in the autumn.

Mr. Clappison: Has the Minister seen the letter in The Times today from a farmer who sowed a crop of rape seed that, unbeknown to him at the time, was GM-contaminated? When he sowed that crop, the Government had already known for several weeks that there was GM-contaminated seed, but it was several more weeks before that was eventually made public. He has now destroyed the crop and resown, but obviously at additional cost to himself and with a lower yield. In view of that farmer's experience and, no doubt, that of other farmers at sowing time, was the Minister for the Cabinet Office right to say that the Government probably made a mistake in delaying that announcement for so long?

Mr. Brown: When the company discovered what had happened, it was its responsibility to be candid with its suppliers and customers, so the responsibility is on it. Important issues of civil law are involved, which the Government are considering carefully. There are other issues that relate to the Government's legal responsibilities, which I also have under active consideration, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It would be unwise to say more now, but as soon as I can tell the House about the legal issues involved, I will.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the possibility of extending the subsidy system to include farmer cover, were we to go down the path that the Swedish Government announced yesterday? They instructed all their farmers to plough up their fields of contaminated oilseed rape by 7 July. Will he also extend that examination to the implications that that may have for GM-contaminated maize? The subsidy system that I hope he will consider ought not to preclude the primary responsibility, under the "polluter pays" principle, of returning to the seed suppliers and ensuring that they are not able to corrupt the food system where they have not been able to persuade consumers, farmers or retailers that that is the wisest course of action.

Mr. Brown: Knowingly to corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment. That remains the case. I intend to raise the issues about oilseed rape to which my hon. Friend refers with Commissioner Fischler when I meet him on Monday. It is an informal ministerial meeting so we shall have a chance to discuss those issues as Ministers with the Commission. My hon. Friend

mentions maize. The Government have had no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported to the United Kingdom contain modified varieties.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that, irrespective of whether one generally supports GM technology or is hostile to it, there appears to be an incoherence in the British Government's response to the issue not merely because it is divided between two Departments but because the Cabinet Office has a role as well? The producers of rape seed, negotiators in the Commission and overseas companies need to know which door to knock on, and where the buck stops and where it starts—preferably in the same place. Will the Minister review with his colleagues whether there is not a strong case for a much clearer system of governance of the issue so that people know where they stand and where to go in case of problems?

Mr. Brown: It is not the process that is at fault. The issues are these: is there any danger to the public, or is there a risk to their health? The Government found the answer to that early on—it is clearly no, and no-one has alleged anything different. Is there any danger to the environment from what has happened—an accident which should not have happened—with oilseed rape? The answer to that question is also no. Does the matter raise wider questions about seed purity? Yes, it does. As we have said in our answer, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in her written answer, and as I amplified in my statement to the House last week, on a range of fronts the Government are taking those issues forward as a matter of urgency.

Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way forward now on seed purity is for him to work with his European colleagues to establish a proper protocol whereby these matters may be determined? Will he also accept that while our farm-scale trials are under way a 1 per cent. contamination of conventional crops with genetically modified crops is absolutely unacceptable? Frankly, Advanta must have known that when it was willing to sell suspect seed in Europe.

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the last matter. We have not agreed contamination levels for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is right to say that European Union Ministers should discuss these matters and, if we can, agree a common approach. Certainly, I am willing to play my part and I discussed the matter with my colleague Jean Glavany, the French Minister, on the telephone yesterday. His view is similar to mine.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The Minister believes that contaminated oilseed rape crops are so environmentally safe that he did not think it necessary even to consult English Nature—and the issue is not even on the published agenda for today's meeting of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Why did he take a whole month to warn farmers and consumers that these crops are now being grown extensively in Britain? Will not farmers whose crops have been damaged, communities whose environments are threatened and consumers whose ability to choose a


GM-free product have been jeopardised all rightly blame the Minister for keeping that information secret for a whole month and failing to take any action?

Mr. Brown: I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House. I put the technical note in the Library and I have now also put the advice from ACRE and from the Food Standards Agency there, so that hon. Members may see it for themselves. They will find that it confirms what I have told the House. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the process, which is, of course, because he has nothing to say on the substance.

Mr. Yeo: Is the Minister saying that today's reports that large areas of GM-contaminated maize are growing in Britain are not true? Has his Department not received any warning that they may be true? Should not farmers who may have unwittingly planted a GM-maize crop at least be contacted about the possibility? Does he agree with the Environment Minister that the 1 per cent. threshold for GM contamination of seeds proposed by the European Seeds Association is totally unacceptable to consumers and potentially dangerous to the environment?

Mr. Brown: I have already answered the question of whether I agree with the Environment Minister; yes, I do. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from what I can only describe as Liberal Democrat disease, because I also answered his main question. However, for the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat the answer word for word. We—meaning the British Government—have no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported into the United Kingdom contain modified varieties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had any warning. I think that he is referring to a letter circulated by the seed industry—he can correct me if I am wrong—dated 22 May to agriculture departments and other public representatives throughout the European Union. If he is referring to that, it is a letter that all hon. Members should be entitled to read and on which they should be able to make up their own minds, so I am placing a copy in the Library. The letter does not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Set-aside

Mr. Derek Wyatt: What his priorities are for the next round of reforms of the common agricultural policy with respect to set-aside. [122408]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Agenda 2000 agreement provides for a further review of the cereals regime by 2002. Subject to what the Commission proposes, we will use the opportunity to press for an end to obligatory set-aside.

Mr. Wyatt: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments on obligatory set-aside—I am sympathetic to that. However, one thing about set-aside that I do appreciate is the number of lapwings, skylarks, buntings and curlews that are now breeding. If there is a change, how will we cope with the fact that nature prefers some aspects of set-aside?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the benefits of set-aside—especially for farmland birds. The Ministry has given free guidance to farmers on how they can maximise the nature conservation benefits of set-aside. We have no objection to voluntary set-aside being used for nature conservation—that fits with our broader approach on the management of agricultural land for environmental use as well as for food production. However, as a mechanism for food production control, it is expensive and inefficient. The way in which the measures are applied causes a bad image of farmers in the public eye.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give us an assurance that set-aside will not be used as part of the bid game between northern member states such as Britain, Denmark and Ireland and the Club Med countries? What assurance will he give the House that the future of British interests will be seen in the next common agricultural policy reform?

Mr. Morley: The Government have always put the interests of our country to the fore in negotiations on changes in the CAP. We are not alone in that; we have supporters because we have tried to find consensus and common ground. That contrasts greatly with the policy of the previous Government.

Match Funding

Mr. Paul Burstow: What is the total amount of unclaimed match funding relating to agricultural support available to the UK since 1997. [122410]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A total of £2,155 million in agrimonetary compensation has become available from January 1997 to date, in several three-year packages. Of that total, £595 million has been or will be paid, of which £584 million is EU funded and £11 million UK funded. However, because of the Fontainebleau abatement, the UK Exchequer contributes about 71 per cent. of the cost—and the total cost to the UK taxpayer is therefore about £426 million.

Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that, last year, about £224 million was available through the agrimonetary compensation scheme but only of that £66 million was allocated and drawn down to provide compensation for hard-pressed farmers? Why was the Ministry unable to guarantee that 100 per cent. went to the farmers who needed it, so that they received support when they needed it and were not put out of business because they had not received it?

Mr. Brown: The regime is permissive; we have the option of drawing down those sums. As I have just said, an overwhelming part of the cost of doing so falls on the UK taxpayer, so any use of that instrument must take its place among competing claims for public expenditure. I have to fight hard in Government the case for making use of that instrument. For the longer term, because agrimonetary compensation is being phased out, the industry—all sections of agriculture—must become more oriented towards the marketplace. There is no future for the industry in continuing to call for supply-side measures to help it from one crisis to the next.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Returning to the real purpose of Question 6, which was about subsidies for arable farming—

Madam Speaker: Order. We do not go back to other questions. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ask a supplementary on this question, I shall listen to him.

Mr. Quinn: It is a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
On Friday evening, I attended a meeting of the National Farmers Union in Scarborough, where there was much concern about the effect of agrimonetary compensation and the impact of the weak euro. Can my right hon. Friend find time to come with me to meet members of the NFU in Scarborough to talk about that subject?

Mr. Brown: I am more than willing to meet members of the NFU; indeed, I think I have met most of them personally over the past few years. If I have not done so, it certainly feels like that. The Government have made use of agrimonetary compensation to try to provide some short-term support for the industry, but that is not the long-term answer to the industry's problems. I am more than willing to join my hon. Friend to discuss the way forward with local farmers in Scarborough.

Mr. James Gray: At the recent No. 10 summit, the Minister made great play of the fact that he was giving £66 million in agrimonetary compensation to farmers. However, he should surely have also said in the same statement that he was taking away £110 million of exactly the same agrimonetary compensation. Is it not a classic case of taking away rather more with one hand than he is giving with the other? The agriculture summit was a classic public relations con.

Mr. Brown: That is completely unfair. The agriculture summit, which pulled together from right across government a wide range of issues that affect farmers, was broadly welcomed by the industry and received a positive response—the more so when people have had the chance to consider the details. The fact that we do not make use of a permissive instrument to spend British public money does not mean that we have taken it away from people who might have been the beneficiaries. One could take that argument to an absurd degree if one wanted, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might want to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Criminal Courts

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What contribution the Crown Prosecution Service will make towards the Lord Chancellor's review of the criminal courts system. [122430]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service is playing its full part in Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. An experienced CPS prosecutor, Nasrin Khan, has been seconded to the secretariat to Sir Robin Auld for the duration of the review. Staff from across the CPS are attending the seminars being organised by Lord Justice Auld and there are other contributions to his deliberations.

Mr. Quinn: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House what have been the key topics and priorities discussed with Lord Justice Auld about the work done by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The Solicitor-General: One of our main concerns is listing in the courts. The CPS has found in the past that magistrates courts often adopt listing procedures that do not take into account the need for an efficient operation of the CPS. Appeals in cases of judge-directed acquittals is another important topic. In some cases, judges have decided on abuse-of-process grounds that charges should be dismissed and we take the view that that matter should be subject to review. The Home Office has referred it to the Law Commission, but a whole range of features involving management and other aspects of the operation of the courts is being considered.

Mr. Edward Garnier: May I be assured by the Solicitor-General that the CPS will tell the criminal courts review the wholly uncontroversial point that the Government's plans for the reform of the jury system will lead to court delays, increased appeals, loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system and a great deal of extra expense?

The Solicitor-General: The matter will be subject to some examination by Sir Robin Auld. He is considering the whole procedure of the courts, and the operation of the jury system is one aspect of that. Our proposals will certainly not have the consequences that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. On the contrary, they will lead to a more efficient operation of the courts, which is one aspect of the review.

Drugs Cases

Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the application of the public interest test by the Crown Prosecution Service in drugs cases. [122431]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are guided by the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to offences involving controlled drugs, as with any other offence.


Therefore, they must decide whether a prosecution should be brought in the public interest. First, a Crown prosecutor has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. Once that test is satisfied, the public interest test must be considered.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I suggest to him that it is very much in the public interest to continue the fight against all kinds of drugs and not to ease off in any way? May I urge him not to be enticed by the arguments pushed and pedalled by those who make the case for legalisation or decriminalisation? Does he agree that, at a time when we are trying to ban smoking, it makes no sense to take a softer line towards people who mix tobacco with cannabis and then smoke that?

The Solicitor-General: As I said, the CPS acts in accordance with the code. There must be evidence before consideration of the public interest test can take place. Parliament has not decriminalised cannabis, so the CPS will prosecute those offences. In some circumstances, of course, the police will simply issue a caution and the cases will not come to the CPS. When cases do come to the CPS, public interest factors may sometimes militate against prosecution. For example, in areas in which prosecution for possession of cannabis may lead to adverse community relations, the CPS may decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. However, possession is a criminal offence and the CPS proceeds on that basis.

Mr. John Bercow: Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a repeat drugs offender, in what conceivable circumstances could it be against the public interest to do so?

The Solicitor-General: Repetition of behaviour is one factor that would be taken into account and would certainly point towards prosecution.

Vexatious Litigants

Mr. David Drew: How many applications with regard to vexatious litigants the Law Officers have dealt with over the past 12 months. [122432]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): In the past 12 months the High Court has considered 11 applications made by the Law Officers under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Of those 11 applications, nine resulted in orders being made, one application was refused and one, although heard, awaits judgment. In the same period, the employment appeals tribunal made two orders under section 33 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, which prevents applications to the tribunal.

Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Obviously, it is not without interest for the House, given this week's proceedings.
What are the implications for the individuals concerned? Clearly, if an order is served on someone, that can lead to considerable restriction of his or her activities. Is that compatible with the European convention on human rights?

The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I give these applications close consideration when they come before us. One of my constituents is a vexatious litigant, and he constantly reminds me, in the nicest possible way, of the implications that the order has for him.
We carefully consider such applications, which must then be considered by two High Court judges sitting in the divisional court. On the human rights aspect, Strasbourg has considered the matter on two occasions and said that the orders are compatible with the ECHR. The test is very high. The statute requires habitual and persistent behaviour, and it must be reasonable in the circumstances for the court to make that order. As the figures that I gave my hon. Friend indicate, the number of applications is not significant.
An order does not prevent vexatious litigants from litigating, but they have to seek the leave of the court to bring an action.

CPS (Racism)

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the findings of Ms Sylvia Denman in her interim report on racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. [122433]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Sylvia Denman presented her interim report on race discrimination in the Crown Prosecution Service to the Department on 10 May 2000. The report recognises that some of the most glaring deficiencies in race equality in the CPS have been remedied recently, but concludes that there is evidence that some forms of race discrimination and institutional racism have operated to the disadvantage of black and Asian staff within the service. The report recommends various areas for future work, which will now be addressed by the CPS in consultation with Sylvia Denman and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and recognise his personal commitment to dealing with racism in the CPS. Does he agree that Ms Denman has clearly identified a trend within CPS management to downplay the possibility of racism, look for innocent explanations when those may not exist, and indeed, on occasion, blame the victim? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that something must be done to change the culture at the top of the CPS so that it recognises that there is a real and immediate problem to address?

The Solicitor-General: As I have told the House on previous occasions, we take the matter seriously. A number of steps have been taken, which I have explained to the House. One matter that I have not mentioned is the fact that all CPS area plans must now set out clearly what is being done to address issues of diversity. There is no doubt that the report makes uncomfortable reading for those at the top of the CPS and those in senior


management positions. Something must be done. There is not a sufficient number of black and ethnic minority persons at senior management levels. Now that benchmarks have been established, the CPS must meet them and ensure that the problem is remedied.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Solicitor-General confirm that Ms Denman's final report will review the impact on the CPS of the change in the burden of proof imposed by Labour MEPs voting in the European Parliament last week?

The Solicitor-General: That has nothing to do with the law in this country. We operate under the Race Relations Act 1976. We have made it clear that internally, the CPS must lift its game. With regard to the external behaviour of the CPS and the prosecutions that it undertakes, the recently published Mhlanga report showed clearly that there was no racial discrimination.

CPS

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on measures to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. [122434]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service has a number of initiatives in place to improve efficiency within the service. A major programme of IT modernisation will provide basic IT tools and enable staff to be connected electronically to each other, the police and the Government secure intranet.
The CPS is developing joint administrations with the police—criminal justice units—to prepare magistrates courts cases more efficiently. Similar arrangements are being developed for the establishment of trial units, which will focus on and raise the standard of preparation of Crown court cases.
The CPS, working closely with the police and the courts, is playing a significant part in the effective implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many cases offenders are brought to court the day after charge. Across much of England and Wales, 60 per cent. of cases are now completed at the first hearing.

Mr. Paterson: The Solicitor-General missed out the victims of crime. Who measures whether they are happy with the efficiency of the CPS?

The Solicitor-General: As I have said on previous occasions, victims are central to the policies that we are adopting. We take into account the role of victims. We have instituted pilot studies so that the CPS can operate more effectively with victims and with witnesses. I confess to the House that the pilots have revealed some difficulties in the CPS adopting a more central role, but

we are working on that. We hope that, with more resources, we will be able to put the CPS at the centre of a more victim-oriented criminal justice system.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not the efficiency of the CPS be improved if there were fewer vexatious prosecutions, such as those that I listed to one of my hon. and learned Friend's fellow Ministers? I refer to prosecutions against people who use natural cannabis for severe pain. Of the last prosecutions, every one has been thrown out by the juries, who exercised good sense and decided that people who were seriously ill and seeking relief from pain should not be regarded as criminals, prosecuted and imprisoned. When will there be a simple change in the law to allow natural cannabis to be prescribed in the same way as heroin is prescribed legally now?

The Solicitor-General: I refute my hon. Friend's suggestion that there are vexatious prosecutions. The CPS acts in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. There must be evidence, and public interest considerations must be taken into account. As I explained in an earlier answer, the law provides certain offences in relation to drugs. My hon. Friend knows that clinical trials are being held and that money is going into research on the problem that he raises. I refute the notion of vexatious prosecutions.
My hon. Friend also raises the issue of the jury. In serious cases, juries obviously have an important role to play in the British criminal justice system, and in some cases juries acquit defendants. That does not mean that the prosecutions should not have been brought. The evidence suggested that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and a public interest in bringing a prosecution, but a jury took a different view. So be it.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeks an Adjournment debate, he might get a shorter answer.

Mr. John Burnett: Last Tuesday on Second Reading of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill, the Solicitor-General told the House, at columns 885-86, that the Attorney-General was making great efforts to improve the funding for the Crown Prosecution Service and that in that endeavour he was being supported by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It would assist the collapsing morale of the CPS to know exactly when those negotiations will be over. Furthermore, it would assist the House and the CPS to be assured that the rolled-forward deficits will not continue to be rolled forward in future years.

The Solicitor-General: I said the other day that I hoped to bring good news to the House very soon. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is dealing with those matters expeditiously.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the Whitsun recess?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 JUNE—Supplemental Allocation of Time Motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
TUESDAY 6 JUNE—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 8 JUNE—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 9 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
I regret that I am not in the position to give full details of the business for the following week, but the provisional business is as follows:
MONDAY 12 JUNE—Debate on European Affairs.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European Document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 June 2000:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999–2000).]

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business for the week after the Whitsun recess, and for a hint of the business for the following week.
The Deputy Leader of the House has announced a guillotine motion on the Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. How long does he plan to allow for debate on those amendments? He will be aware that 1,450 amendments to that Bill have been passed, that it has been rewritten since Second Reading in this place, and that 238 amendments were tabled on Report in the upper House. He will also be aware that the Opposition have assisted the Government by agreeing to carry the Bill over from the previous Session, and I hope that that generosity will not be met with a less than generous timetable. One day is simply too ambitious if the amendments are to be properly scrutinised.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the debate on European affairs on Monday 12 June will be the usual pre-summit debate, not a substitute for a proper whole day's debate focused on the intergovernmental conference White Paper, for which I have been pressing for some time?
The hon. Gentleman also announced a debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on 6 June. The next few days are likely to be crucial for Northern Ireland. Will it be in order during the debate on that Bill to discuss the outcome of the Unionist vote and the consequences for Northern Ireland? If not, the House may well want a proper debate on Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has two or three days blank in our second week back, might we pencil in the much delayed debate on the Wakeham report and a debate on foreign affairs, which has not been held for some time?
Finally, there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the dome, which I hope the Government will recognise by finding time for us to debate it.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments, and for his help with the Financial Services and Markets Bill. As he says, there has been a great deal of co-operation on that; there has also been a great deal of debate. I am keen to keep the consensus going, and there will be further discussions through the usual channels about the allocation of time motion.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the debate on European affairs. The details are not yet firm, but I imagine that IGC issues and concerns could be raised—as, of course, could other matters.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the situation in Northern Ireland is critical and fast-moving, and I do not think that we should prejudge it. If circumstances change there may well be a case for a statement to the House, but I think it entirely possible that a number of wide-ranging issues could be raised in a Second Reading debate, as long as they remained within the scope of such a debate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Wakeham report. As he said, there is space for a debate on that in the second week. I remind him that we had a date pencilled in, but changed it for the convenience of the House.
I have not lost sight of the need for a debate. There has been change in the House of Lords; we have delivered on that, and we are determined to deliver on the Wakeham report. We are determined to build consensus, and to move to a second phase. Consensus between the political parties would help.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about foreign affairs. There is a possibility of a debate at a later stage.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will visit the dome during the Whitsun recess. If he does, he will join the two and a half million people who have already been there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that all?"] The dome is the most popular attraction in the United Kingdom, and I think that those who have been to "do the dome" will want to do it again.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my hon. Friend will know, many Labour Members are proud of our ethical foreign policy, and think it essential for Governments to maintain a clear and moral stance on many foreign policy issues. Will my hon. Friend therefore tell our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that it is essential for Britain not to be seen to support countries in which show trials take place? I am thinking of the 13 Jews who are being tried in Iran.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has been interested in these matters for many years. I knew of the concerns that


she has raised, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is also aware of them. I will pass her comments on to him.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I reiterate my weekly plea for an early debate on reform of the House of Lords? We delayed effective reform of the other place throughout the last century; I hope that it will not take the whole of this century for Governments to get off the fence and give us a firm statement of their intentions for full reform.
I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is holding a rail summit today. Can the Minister give an undertaking that, as soon as we return after the Whitsun recess, a full statement will be made about the important issues that are apparently being discussed—issues that were alluded to in the "Today" programme today? That might enable various former Secretaries of State—including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—to apologise both to the travelling public and to shareholders for the disasters that they caused.

Mr. Tipping: After a hundred years of struggle there has been reform of the House of Lords, and the current Government have brought it about. We intend to go further. We have published the Wakeham report, and have considered it. We support it in principle, and we shall have an opportunity to discuss it here. Let me simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we shall go forward on further reform.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement on the rail summit. I am afraid I cannot give him the commitment that he seeks, but I can give him another commitment. In July, we will make a statement on the 10-year strategy for transport that will do away with the fragmentation to which he referred, and will bring extra and much needed investment to the railways.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The usual.

Mr. Tipping: There is some secrecy about this matter, but I have to tell my hon. Friend and the House that I have nothing to report.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman pass on to the Leader of the House my appreciation of her characteristic courtesy in sending me a copy of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report? However, did the Government deliberately intend that response to make them appear, in the Prime Minister's definition, arch-apostles of conservatism?

Mr. Tipping: I will of course pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We need to remember that the Liaison Committee's report was published just a week ago. I understand that the Committee has just met and issued a press release, which has been drawn to my attention. It is a far-reaching matter with consequences for the House.

Mr. Edward Garnier: And for the Government.

Mr. Tipping: Yes—and for the Government. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for further debate.

Ann Clwyd: Given the concerns expressed by Richard Butler, the former head of the arms

inspectorate in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein may be rebuilding his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and be within months of having a nuclear capability, I ask my hon. Friend for an urgent debate on Iraq. Those matters are of concern, particularly as the United Nations resolution, which the UK was prominent in pushing through the UN last December, has still not been accepted by the Iraqis.

Mr. Tipping: I understand my hon. Friend's obvious concern and real interest in that important issue. A number of hon. Members have taken the opportunity recently to initiate foreign affairs debates in Westminster Hall, and that may be a possibility. I will convey my hon. Friend's comments to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Government provide time for an early debate on the park homes working party report, which is of great significance to large numbers of constituents? It has been some two years in the preparation and is well worth a debate.

Mr. Tipping: I share the hon. Gentleman's real interest, and had some input myself into the park homes working party. There is a need to amend the legislation. The report has only recently been published and it needs to be considered carefully. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can make real progress with that issue.

Mr. David Winnick: I shall initiate a debate in Westminster Hall on 6 June on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese. Would it be possible for the Ministry of Defence to hurry its decision? In view of the intense brutality and outright killings involving prisoners of war, those who managed to survive—including at least three of my constituents—deserve some recognition and compensation for all the terrible things that occurred to them. I hope that when my debate takes place, a fresh and positive approach will be taken by the Government.

Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister and Defence Ministers met leaders of the Royal British Legion and undertook to look at the matter. That undertaking has also been given to the House. I hope that some progress will be made in my hon. Friend's debate on 6 June.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the points made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the House, but in the light of reported press comments from America, will the House be free in its own place to debate and decide on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, or will there be a USA veto?

Mr. Tipping: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as is often the case, press reports of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Clinton are a complete fabrication.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on Government measures to assist young unemployed people? That would be particularly welcome in my constituency because it would provide the opportunity to draw attention to the


start of a foyer scheme to provide housing and training for young people—who not only need a roof over their head but assistance with finding a job.

Mr. Tipping: The new deal has offered a very real deal to young people both in Doncaster and throughout the country. The example of the foyer movement shows that joined-up government can not only work in Westminster, but be delivered on the ground in the middle of an important coal field.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will the hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the Government's apparent renewal of plans to introduce regional assemblies to England? May I make it clear yet again to him and to his colleagues that in the constituency of Cheadle, and, in my experience, throughout the north-west, there is no demand whatever for yet another pointless tier of government?

Mr. Tipping: Some regional development agencies have made real progress. The issue of assemblies will, I think, appear in the next Labour manifesto—and I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman does not have much chance of contributing to that debate.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 782:
[That this House is alarmed to discover that up to 100,000 hectares of this year's maize crop in Europe may be subject to GM contamination; is concerned that this is on a larger scale than the recently admitted GM contamination of oilseed rape; believes it is grossly dishonest of the European seed industry and EU officials to respond by demanding a reversal of current European zero contamination rules rather than tackling the central issue of genetic pollution; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to follow Sweden and France in destroying GM-contaminated seeds and crops, to arrange compensation for farmers, to hold seed suppliers fully liable for contamination under the polluter pays principle, and to halt seed imports which lack comprehensive verification as being GM-free.]
Has my hon. Friend also seen the letter from the European Seed Association that was referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time. Will it be possible for the House to have either a statement or a debate that clarifies the United Kingdom position on proposals to change the current European position, which is that there should be zero GM contamination? The European Seed Association suggests that 1 per cent. should be allowed. May I also ask him to convey to the Minister the degree of alarm that that causes Members, and society? The reassurance that there is just a little bit of genetic contamination is no more comforting than the idea of being a little bit pregnant.

Mr. Tipping: I have seen early-day motion 782. As my hon, Friend rightly says, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has seen it, too. Our policies on safety and science are drawn. We have looked at the claims of the European Seed Association. If any evidence is forthcoming, we will act on it and report to the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister is well known as a consensual sort of chap.

Today, he again took refuge in that idea in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the debate on reform of the Lords. The Minister is looking for consensus on the matter before it can proceed. Can he help the House, and, indeed, my right hon. Friend, by defining consensus in that context?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is—I am sure that he will not mind me saying—not a consensual politician. Indeed, I sometimes think that it is difficult for his own Front-Bench team to agree with anything that he says, but the Wakeham report defines a way forward. It is the best show in town. It is the vehicle to go forward. I know that he does not agree. I understand that he takes the view that if there is an elected upper House, it will have the same rights as the House of Commons. I do not agree. I do not believe that that is the mood of the House.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Did my hon. Friend have the opportunity on Monday to read The Guardian and the article in it headlined, "Firework safety law was wrecked by pro-hunt plot"? If so, did he note in particular the comments of John Woodhead, who has long service in the firework industry? He said:
If this bill had become law it would certainly help ministers now to deal with any regulation changes that might be necessary after the disastrous fireworks warehouse explosion in Holland.
Will my hon. Friend make time available for the House to debate that important issue? Does he share my concern at the actions of some Opposition Members, which appear to put the interests of those who kill foxes for fun before sensible measures such as the Fireworks Bill, which would have kept from harm children, human beings and animals?

Mr. Tipping: I have seen the report in The Guardian. I am also well aware of the tremendous interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the matter over a number of years, and of the support that she has received right across the spectrum, from those who are concerned with safety issues to those who manufacture and work with fireworks. It seems that the measure did fall, and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the measure did not go forward as a punishment for letting Back Benchers play around with hunting. That seems to me an example of the legitimate but silly games that give the House a very bad name.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that the absence of a debate on London in the next two weeks' business does not mean that the Government believe that the establishment of a Greater London Authority precludes our debating London issues, particularly those that are the responsibility not of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or of the London Assembly, but of Ministers? Can he reassure us that we are not precluded from debating issues such as the dome—on which £89 million of public money has recently been spent—and the priority that the Government accord to it, and Harefield hospital, in west London, which is due to close, thanks to the Government's parsimony?

Mr. Tipping: Of course London remains a seriously important issue for the House, just as transport, social security policy and the relief of poverty are issues for the


House. The dome, too, is a matter for the House. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government took powers to change the lottery legislation so that money could be spent not only on a dome in Greenwich, but throughout the country. Many projects in London and right across the country are benefiting from that. He also asked about lottery money being used for health. He will remember that this Government—unlike the previous Government—legislated to make it possible to put money into health.

Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 742, which states:
[That this House considers that sufficient parliamentary time has been allocated to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill; and calls upon the promoters of the Bill to withdraw this Bill in its current form and to resubmit proposals for a genuine democratic reform of the City of London Corporation.]
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Bill is the first extension of the business vote since 1832, and is a straightforward attack on democratic accountability. Although the vote on the Bill is unwhipped, as it is a private Bill, I have noticed that, in the past, our helpful friends from the Government Whips Office are always on hand to guide hon. Friends into the pro-Bill Lobby. Have we not wasted enough time on that disgraceful Bill, and is it not about time that the promoters withdrew it or the Government decided not to allocate any more time to it?

Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a real interest in that matter, and has spoken at great length about it. However, withdrawal of the Bill is a matter for its promoters. I should also like to reinforce a point that the Leader of the House made not long ago: the Bill is unwhipped business; it is a matter of private business. I should also say that the Whips have not caused me to stray any which way on that particular Bill.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, once said that the dome would be absolutely dramatic and fantastic. When he said that, none of us realised that he was referring to the grotesque squandering of £538 million of lottery money—which, as every one of us knows, could have been spent on better lottery projects in our own constituencies. As the issue has developed such a head of steam, both within and outside the House, how can the Minister come here and say that he cannot give us a debate on this national scandal in the next week's business?

Mr. Tipping: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to the dome—

Mr. Paterson: I have.

Mr. Tipping: —but 80 per cent. of those who go to it come out saying that they have enjoyed the experience—which is dramatic and fantastic. The fact is that 6 million people will visit the dome—twice the number who will visit Alton Towers in the same period. Alton Towers is dramatic and fantastic; so is the dome.

Mr. Clive Efford: It is more than a year since Back Benchers had the opportunity to discuss the

activities of Ofsted. A few weeks ago, four of Her Majesty's inspectors entered one of the largest comprehensive schools in the country—it is in my constituency—and, after an inspection spanning only eight school periods, placed the school on special measures. My discussions with the Department for Education and Employment have revealed that only the House can hold Ofsted to account. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider setting aside some time for us to discuss Ofsted's activities, which, as I said, have not been discussed for more than a year?

Mr. Tipping: I may not be in a position to offer a debate in the House, but the issue warrants discussion. I hope that my hon. Friend will apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. There are some serious issues to consider, including how we improve public services. Many of us believe that they can be improved by praise, reward and good example. That message has been passed to Ofsted.

Mr. Graham Brady: May we have an urgent statement from the Government, preferably as soon as we return from the Whitsun recess, on Labour's policy of closing the remaining grammar schools? On Tuesday of this week, Education Ministers in the Standing Committee considering the Learning and Skills Bill claimed that it was the Government's policy that parents should decide. None the less, a letter that has come into my possession from the Labour leader of Trafford borough council, signed also by the education spokesman, and citing one David Blunkett in support, calls on all members of the Labour party—it begins "Dear Labour party member"—to campaign by stuffing envelopes, delivering letters, canvassing door to door, telephone canvassing and collecting signatures at the school gate. It is now certain that the Labour party is getting involved in a campaign to destroy some of the best schools in the country, despite what Ministers pretend in the House. That is not acceptable. It is time that the Government came clean.

Mr. Tipping: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman takes such an interest in the fortunes of the Labour group in Trafford, who trounced his party at the May elections. Labour remained in control of Trafford. The Government's policy is clear: it is a matter of choice for parents.

Mr. David Chaytor: I reiterate the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) about the activities of Ofsted. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to this week's Ofsted report on three local authorities that are deemed to be underachieving, one of which—Rochdale—is adjacent to my constituency. Last year, Bury local education authority was praised by Ofsted as one of the leading authorities in the country.
Rather than contracting out to external consultants the responsibility for the management of education in underachieving authorities, would it not be logical to use the expertise that already exists in the public sector, particularly if adjacent local authorities are performing remarkably well? Does my hon. Friend agree that that raises important constitutional issues relating to the


fragmentation of the responsibilities of local education authorities? Will he find time in the near future for a debate on the future role of local education authorities?

Mr. Tipping: The canvas for a useful and wide-ranging debate in Westminster Hall has been set. It is important to look at the roles of Ofsted and of local education authorities. A great many local authorities do valuable and important work. We ought to promote the standard of the best and bring the others up to it. What is important is what works. If the private sector can contribute, it should have a role.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Head teachers have confirmed that many schools in my constituency and throughout the country greatly value the ethos and the culture, the identity and the pride in their school uniforms. When will there be time for a debate on the Floor of the House about the cost of implementing the Human Rights Act 1998, which derives from Europe and is coming into force in this country in October? It is causing great concern among head teachers about what they have to do to review their rules as a matter of urgency. It could have a serious and potentially damaging effect on the culture that they have so successfully created in good schools.

Mr. Tipping: I was not aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which is a serious one. I understand that the Human Rights Act will not have the effect that he spells out, but in view of his concerns, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: In answering the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Minister draw to the attention of the Foreign Secretary an article that appeared in the Teheran Times on 12 April which stated that the holocaust was a zionist conspiracy aimed at defrauding the west? Does he consider that this House ought to have time to consider the advisability of this country cementing its relations with Iran at a time when anti-zionism and anti-semitism are being fomented, and when a show trial of 13 Jews—who are facing a possible death penalty—is being pursued?

Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I have not had the opportunity to read the Teheran Times, but I will procure a copy and make sure that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have the opportunity to look at it. I reassure my hon. Friend that in January, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary pressed those matters extremely hard. I know from discussions this morning that they intend to pursue the issue further.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give our best wishes to the Leader of the House, who, even as we speak, may be winding her way on a caravanning holiday for the recess? Will the Minister confirm that he will make Government time available for a debate in the House on road safety? Will he express his concern about the poor record in North Yorkshire in terms of deaths and injuries—165 per 100,000 population—about which I feel most strongly? Most of the traffic

involved emanates from, and is destined for, areas outside North Yorkshire. At the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, will he promise to make time for such a debate?

Mr. Tipping: I say gently to the hon. Lady that the Leader of the House is diligent—almost religious—in her attendance at this House, and takes these matters seriously. For personal reasons, she cannot be here today, and she regrets that. The hon. Lady has made an important point about taking care when we go on holiday, and there is a responsibility on all of us as individuals. There is a view that we ought to spend more on road safety than on the development of new roads and new transport structures. I think that that is a lively issue, and one that will continue to be debated across the House.

Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on a small but important issue—the availability of hearing aids in the national health service? I am delighted that today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced a £4 million pilot to provide new digital hearing aids to the deaf and hard of hearing, and I am proud that the Royal Shrewsbury hospital is one of those pilots.

Mr. Tipping: The extra 35 per cent. real-terms money for the national health service will give people—particularly those with a hearing impediment—new opportunities. I agree with my hon. Friend that there ought to be more choice of equipment for people with a disability.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the deputy Leader of the House to the report issued by his boss in response to the Liaison Committee's report entitled "Shifting the Balance"? The response might well have been entitled, "Not on your Nellie". Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgent that we have a debate on this matter? There cannot be much difficulty, bearing in mind that the response of the Leader of the House suggests that the Government see no backlog of Select Committee reports coming to this House for debate. There are serious issues here about holding the Executive to account, and, frankly, many of us believe that the document does not provide an adequate response from the Government.

Mr. Tipping: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the Government's response. "Shifting the Balance" is an important report and has consequences across the House and for the Government. The Liaison Committee met this morning to discuss the response, and there will be further opportunities in due course to take the matter further. On Select Committee reports, the measures that we have taken so far—in which the hon. Gentleman has been involved—allow for three times the number of Select Committee reports to be discussed. A lot has been achieved, but much remains to be done.

Gillian Merron: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on the issue of financial support for pensioners, so that we can have an open and honest debate to compare the differences between this Government, who are committed to reducing pensioner poverty, and the Opposition, who plan to offer a small amount with one


hand and take much more with the other? The Opposition's plans would turn the clock back for many of the more than 16,000 pensioners in Lincoln, especially the poorest among them.

Mr. Tipping: I am tempted to promise a debate on pension issues. It is clear that the only part of the pension policy that has just been announced by the Opposition that has any resonance with the pensioners is the removal both of free television licences for the over-75s and of the winter fuel allowance of £150. I would also be keen to discuss pension mis-selling, because we have never had a real apology for that. Part of that debate could also address the issue of concessionary eye tests for pensioners, which the Opposition removed, but which we are restoring. That is lively and fruitful ground for debate, and I will bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

Mr. Robert Syms: Can we have an urgent statement on the Government's reorganisation of NHS cleft lip and palate units? Rumours have been going around for several months. The Poole unit is threatened with closure, and we now hear rumours about a centre at Bristol or Oxford. The issue is of great concern to parents and we need some guidance on it.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that uncertainty is difficult to live with. People can sometimes live with bad news better than with uncertainty. It is important to hear such concerns, and I shall ensure that Health Ministers are made aware of them.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May I further encourage my hon. Friend to arrange a debate on early-day motion 1:
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to raise income support for pensioners annually in line with average earnings, but regrets the widening gap between the basic pension and income support; notes the Treasury's estimate that by April 2002 the National Insurance Fund's balance will be £8.43 billion above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary; and urges that part of that surplus should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament, thus ensuring that all pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity and preventing a further increase in the number receiving income support.]
That would give us a chance to expose the hollow opportunism of the Conservatives in trying fraudulently to gain support from pensioners by repackaging existing allowances and taking money from single parents. We could also draw attention to the fact that a major increase in pensions is now affordable, because the national insurance fund contains, above its contingency sum, some £8.8 billion this year, and will have £10.5 billion unallocated next year. We could promise pensioners future increases that are fair and based on genuine increases in inflation. Could we not make a start by linking the level of the basic pension with increases in the wages of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has campaigned on that issue for many years, not just with early-day motion 1. He will now that he was successful in persuading the

Government to adopt a take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee, and I know that he will continue to campaign for a link between pensions and earnings. We have made a start with the minimum income guarantee, and it is clear from exchanges in the Chamber today that the debate will continue.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Minister give us an early debate on Government codes of practice? The Government recently conducted a consultation on double taxation relief, but unfortunately they consulted on a proposal that was the opposite of what they then did without consultation. I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, who told me that the judge of whether the Government have obeyed their codes of practice is the Government. The Government, not surprisingly, have adjudged that they did obey the code in that case. In the light of that situation, may we have a debate on how we should enforce Government codes of practice in future?

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a charming way. He is a member of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, where I understand that he has been making that point very strongly.

Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the facts to emerge from the Rover saga is that British banks will not support British industry or jobs? Will he find time for a debate on how we can change the UK banking system so that it supports jobs and industry?

Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise time for a debate on that subject, but one of the matters that has come up today is the role of regional development agencies. I know that the RDA in my hon. Friend's constituency is working hard to ensure that funds are available for the long-term development of companies with a prosperous future in the north-west.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: In evidence given to the Select Committee on Education and Employment earlier this week by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, it emerged that the Government are prepared for secondary school class sizes to increase as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Today is the final day of the Standing Committee on the Learning and Skills Bill, and proceedings have been thrown into disarray by the tabling of a slew of amendments concerning city academies.
It is obvious that the Government do not understand how to involve the dynamism and innovation of the private sector in raising standards in our schools. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the role of the private sector in our education system? The Government have much to learn from what the previous Conservative Government achieved in improving standards in schools by positively involving the private sector. City academies, and what is happening in Surrey county council and elsewhere, are examples of that.

Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that debate, but I can promise that the Government will achieve our targets. Places will be provided for all three and four-year-olds who want them, and we are achieving


our targets in infant schools and junior schools. Much has been achieved, although work remains to be done in secondary schools. The Government are achieving our target of raising standards for all children, right across the country.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have tabled an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to ban hunting with dogs, and that it is attracting awesome levels of support? I anticipate that the Bill will come back on Report in the week beginning 12 June. Are the Government addressing the possibility of introducing a multi-option Bill, along the lines of the 1994 Bill on Sunday trading? If the Government introduce that alternative, I would be minded not to press my amendment to a vote; if they do not, I might just have to press it.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has pursued this issue over many years. I have a feeling that he is trying to hunt me down as his prey. I shall not negotiate with him over the Dispatch Box, but I will say that I shall not anticipate when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will return on Report, nor when the Burns inquiry report will be published. That report will be received and published shortly, and the Government will then make their position absolutely clear. We are confident that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members in the House of Commons support a ban on fox hunting.

Mr. John Bercow: Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on ministerial responsibility? Given the saga of delay, incompetence and profligacy that has characterised the millennium dome, would not such a debate afford hon. Members the chance to explain that, now that Mr. Stephen Bayley, Miss Jenny Page and Mr. Bob Ayling have carried the can and been booted out, it is time that Ministers accepted responsibility for the dome? Would not such a debate give the House the opportunity to tell the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Northern Ireland that they should do the decent thing, either through the tried-and-tested method of a glass of whisky and a revolver, or by submitting their letters of resignation without delay to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Tipping: I think that the hon. Gentleman should himself do the decent thing, and acknowledge that the dome was planned by the previous Government, and that Cabinet Ministers from that Government were involved in

the plan. He should then come clean, and remind the House that he advised Cabinet Ministers in the previous Government.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware that a miracle happened this week, in that Conservative Front Benchers produced a report that was costed, reasonable and worth serious consideration? As an increase in motorcycle use would reduce some of the pressure on our transport infrastructure, will my hon. Friend draw the report to the attention of the Minister for Transport, as well as reminding him that in our integrated transport policy we tried to give motorcycles an important role? Will my hon. Friend do that in the very near future, so that the political kudos that Conservative Members might otherwise obtain will not be long in the tooth?

Mr. Tipping: I always rejoice when miracles are announced, particularly when sinners repent and manage to get their sums right. I think that what my hon. Friend is asking me to do is to ensure that Conservative Members have a chance to get on their bikes and off to a well-deserved holiday. I will bear his comments in mind.

Mr. David Taylor: Am I right to be charitable and to think it a mere coincidence that the Government's contentious waste strategy is to be published today, just before the recess? As the Minister will be aware, many mining and quarrying areas in the east midlands are particularly susceptible to the attentions of landfill operators. We must drive down the amount of waste in landfill sites and increase the amount that is recycled, so that communities such as Boothorpe and Breedon in North-West Leicestershire are not so damaged by what is likely to happen to them. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that there will be a statement on this strategy shortly after the recess, so that there can be a full debate on these important matters?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend raised the matter in the House last week, and, miraculously, the report was published at 11 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Taylor: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Mr. Tipping: I hope that my hon. Friend will get a copy. The report was announced, properly, in a parliamentary answer. The target in the report is to drive down landfill by 85 per cent., to 1998 levels. That is a big step forward, and it could be a win-win situation for all of us if we behave properly. If we recycle and use compost, we will lift the landscape and reduce public taxation. I am very keen to have a debate on that subject.

Orders of the Day — Electronic Communications Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF APPROVALS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out—
("subsection (3) applies in that person's case") and insert
("the condition for the grant of an approval to that person is fulfilled in accordance with subsection (3)")

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 10 to 14.

Ms Hewitt: This group of amendments largely stems from a commitment that I made in Committee and on Report when I undertook to see whether the drafting of the clause could be simplified while preserving the necessary powers of the approvals authority. The amendments do that by expanding on the cross-references between subsections (2) and (3).
It was also drawn to our attention that the description in clause 6(3) of cryptography support services being provided in the United Kingdom related only to clause 2. It therefore seemed sensible that the description should be moved from clause 6 to clause 2. The amendments accomplish that.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 simply correct some grammatical errors in the original drafting. I assure the House that this group of amendments does not change the legal effect of the Bill in any way. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

REGULATIONS UNDER PART I

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("public")

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Ms Hewitt: The three amendments to clause 4 deal with the recommendation that was made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place. It saw the need for the power conferred by subsection (2)(c), but considered that it was too widely

drawn. The amendments mean that any additional gateways for the disclosure of regulatory information must relate to public functions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 5

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND RELATED CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 29, after ("instrument") insert—
(", which (except in the case of the initial regulations) shall be")

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 22.

Ms Hewitt: Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 22 meet two further recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They deal with the parliamentary control that would be exercised if the Government's preference for self-regulation could not be achieved, and, therefore, we decided to implement the statutory regime under part I. Amendment No. 22 would mean that part I could not be implemented unless each House had approved the commencement order. Therefore, it would include in the Bill the undertaking that I gave during earlier stages to return to Parliament before commencing with part I.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are closely related. They would mean that the first time that the Secretary of State exercised his resolution-making powers under part I, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure. On subsequent occasions, they would be subject to the negative procedure. Taken together, the amendments strike a sensible balance between ensuring parliamentary control over a decision to implement part I and ensuring that, if we introduced a statutory approvals scheme, it could be operated flexibly and sensibly.
Amendment No. 9 meets a commitment given in another place to include in the Bill our decision to consult on the approvals criteria.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I welcome what the Minister has said and especially her honouring of a commitment made to my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe in another place.
On amendment No. 9 and the need—and the Government's willingness—to consult those affected, a pattern has developed in consultations on secondary legislation, especially those involving business. I urge the Minister to consider the lead times necessary for business to be consulted. Businesses increasingly find that little time is allowed for consultation, especially given the other pressures on their time. I hope that, in recognising the need for consultation under amendment No. 9, the Minister can assure the House that the Department will set realistic timetables for business consultation.

Mr. Richard Allan: I, too, welcome the Government's commitment, which was expressed by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in another place,


to respond to issues that we raised in Committee. The Minister will know that the Opposition remain concerned about the prospect of part I being implemented. Therefore, an extra block on that, such as having to undertake another parliamentary procedure, is welcome. I should be interested to know whether the Minister could give us an update on the progress of the Government's negotiations with industry on the Tscheme proposals. I understand that they represent a way in which to avoid implementing part I and even the commitment that has been made to bring such matters before Parliament.
On amendment No. 9, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any idea of the time scale that they will set themselves to work with industry? Amendment No. 9 refers to consultation with industry, but such matters would not be dealt with unless and until comprehensive consultations and negotiations on the Tscheme had been undertaken with industry. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the Government's intended time scales for seeking parliamentary approval for the regulations under the amendments, and for laying them before the House and consulting on them. Such matters are important for Britain's future in electronic commerce.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for supporting these and earlier amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of business concerns about the need to allow proper time for consultation on this and other matters. I confirm that we are considering that matter and seeking to ensure that there are both adequate consultation periods and adequate periods between the introduction of regulations and their coming into effect. Certainly, if we brought part I of the Bill into effect, we would ensure that there was proper time for consultation.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am pleased to say that the industry has been making excellent progress in establishing the Tscheme—the voluntary, self-regulatory scheme that we debated in some detail in Committee. Indeed, the second board meeting of members of the scheme was held earlier this week. At this stage, I am confident that the progress which is being demonstrated, and which will, I am sure, be maintained, should make the introduction of part I unnecessary.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 8

POWER TO MODIFY LEGISLATION

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) any such provision in relation to electronic communications or electronic storage the use of which is authorised otherwise than by an order under this section as corresponds to any provision falling within

any of the preceding paragraphs that may be made where it is such an order that authorises the use of the communications or storage.")

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 16.

Ms Hewitt: These amendments are technical and amplify the power contained in clause 8. Amendment No. 15 is intended to ensure that the clause works in the same way when an order facilitates electronic communication as when it authorises such communication. The clause 8 power can operate on both primary and secondary legislation. Amendment No. 16 makes it clear that clause 8 could also operate by modifying a power to make secondary legislation.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Allan: Again, I welcome the amendments. The Minister will be aware that in Committee hon. Members on both sides—including Labour Back Benchers, who made some important contributions—strongly expressed the view that the clause 8 powers should be put in place as swiftly and effectively as possible to facilitate the Government moving towards the use of electronic communications and storage of data. Clearly, the Government took that feeling on board and are trying to do so.
We welcome the fact that the amendments would facilitate that process and would enable the Government not to find unnecessary blocks further down the road to moving from traditional paper-based methods to electronic methods. In that context, the Liberal Democrats certainly see the amendments as an important addition to the clause. However, I reiterate our desire for the Government to move ahead with clause 8 powers as quickly as they can once the Bill becomes law.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

Clause 9

SECTION 8 ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("and section (Modifications in relation to Welsh matters)(1)")

Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.

Ms Hewitt: This group of amendments is designed to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales can exercise the order-making power in clause 8 to authorise or facilitate electronic communications for functions that are exercisable by the Assembly.
Clause 9(7) already gives powers to Scottish Ministers. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want consistency in the application of devolution. The amendments would give effect to that principle. Therefore, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Allan: Again, we welcome the amendments. On a small note of concern, however, let me say that the Minister will know that we are fully in favour of the devolution process that has taken place and see an important role for the National Assembly for Wales, but the trend seems to be for Welsh provisions to be tacked on to legislation late on. A similar process happened with the Learning and Skills Bill when systems that would put in place a comparable system to those in the Bill for England were added on later.
We are concerned that we did not see the comparable provisions for Wales in this Bill until this week, late in its passage through another place. I understand that that may be because of the time required to consult with Members of the Welsh Assembly and we certainly want consultation to take place in that way. Members of the Welsh Assembly should have a good look at the proposals before they are put on the amendment paper here. However, I should be interested to know if there are particular reasons why the Minister could not produce the amendments when the Bill was passing through its major stages in this House. Why did we have to wait until the Bill went to another place to see the Welsh provisions? It should have been fairly obvious at an early stage that they were necessary.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Whitsun)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was lucky enough to be one of the first Members to take part in the NCVO—National Council for Voluntary Organisations—secondment scheme, which mirrors the work of the Industry and Parliament Trust. As part of my stint, I spent two days with Alcohol Concern, including visiting alcohol misuse counselling services in my constituency. It became clear to me that we urgently need a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
I know that the Government are very committed to such a strategy, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will impress on Ministers at the Department of Health the urgency of the matter. If we are serious about wanting to improve our public health, we must tackle alcohol misuse. It crops up in many places—either as a direct cause of ill health or as a key contributory factor.
The impact of alcohol misuse on the national health service and on the family is well known; it also affects teenage pregnancy statistics and vulnerable people. The effects can be seen in exclusions from schools and in social exclusion in the wider sense. The impact is felt in the workplace and in accidents and crime. One in six people attend accident and emergency units as a result of alcohol-related incidents or problems. About 31,300 hospital admissions are due to alcohol dependence syndrome; there is a huge impact on the NHS.
In relation to families, between 60 and 70 per cent. of men who are convicted for assault on their partner committed the assault while under the influence of alcohol. Heavy drinking by parents is a factor in more than 50 per cent. of child protection case conferences. It clearly has a powerful impact in cases of child abuse.
Alcohol misuse affects the vulnerable. About 65 per cent. of suicide attempts are linked to excessive drinking. There are implications for pregnancy—especially teenage pregnancy. About one in five men and one in six women admit to having unsafe sex after drinking too much. That is another strong reason for the urgent introduction of a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
It is surely tragedy enough that 11 to 15-year-olds are drinking, but the mean weekly consumption of alcohol among that group rose from about 5.3 units in 1990 to 9.9 units in 1998. About 20 per cent. of excluded pupils were suspended for drinking at school.
Between 20 and 30 per cent. of all accidents are alcohol related; 15 per cent. of drownings and about 39 per cent. of deaths from fire are linked to alcohol. Another alarming statistic is that about 50 per cent. of rough sleepers are alcohol dependent.
I know that the Government are committed to a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will apply some gentle pressure in the way that only he can do to ensure that the strategy is brought forward as a matter of urgency.
I want briefly to raise two other key issues. The first is the siting of mobile phone masts, an issue that is of great concern in my constituency. I praise Harrow council for


the way in which it has sought to ensure that all mobile phone mast applications are carefully considered. Many residents in Salisbury road in the Headstone South ward of my constituency have argued vociferously against the planned siting of a mobile phone mast close to their homes, and the Montesole Court residents have liaised with me about a particular aspect of the process by which mobile phone mast applications are considered. Members of the Pinner Green residents association are also greatly concerned about an application for a mast to be located in their area.
As a matter of urgency, we need to implement the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry. Members on both sides of the House will be frustrated on occasions by the fact that they cannot stop or overturn decisions to grant planning permission to such masts. I share that frustration given the number of masts that have been sited in my constituency. Rather than assuming that the masts are a good thing, we need to ensure that full and proper consideration is given to the siting of the masts through the normal planning process. When permission has been granted for a mast, we should consider whether residents should not be able to appeal against the decision that has been made.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the need for one of the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry to be implemented. It concluded that, for all base stations including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights should be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process. I hope that that point will be identified as a matter for the immediate attention of planning Ministers.
The final issue that I want to raise is the need for Ministers to encourage the promotion of corporate social and environmental responsibility. In that context, I praise the Co-operative bank, which won an award—the first such award—on the 4 May for the quality of its social reporting. The award was presented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the bank summed the issue up nicely when it said:
A social reporting award for the UK is long overdue—the process of producing a "warts and all" report can at times be a painful experience, particularly when competitors produce glossy PR brochures which focus on style over substance.
The Government should place additional pressure on businesses, particularly large businesses, to follow the auditing and reporting standards set out by AccountAbility—the institute of social and ethical accountability—in its AA1000 standard.
With those few remarks on three entirely different subjects, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to encourage action by the Ministers responsible for the issues that I have described.

Mr. Stephen Day: I believe that the House should consider three matters before rising, all of which are of vital interest to my constituents. Two of those matters are not contentious, merely unaddressed.
First, aircraft noise regulations would give airports statutory authority to fine airlines whose aircraft stray from the official approach and departure flight paths. That

matter is of great interest to many of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Manchester airport is a great asset to the area that I am privileged to represent, and is an important employer and wealth provider. However, it causes many of my constituents grave concern, given the disruption that aircraft noise can create.
Many people in my constituency support the idea that the Government should give such powers to airports like Manchester. That would be of great help in reducing the detrimental environmental impact that unnecessary aircraft noise can cause. From experience, I know that the previous Government approved of such regulations in principle. That is also true of the present Government, and, although I am not totally certain, I believe that such regulations exist in draft form. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me and confirm that that is so. I cannot believe that such a beneficial and non-contentious measure would be opposed in the House, so I hope that the Government can find time to introduce it.
The second issue that I wish to raise on my constituents' behalf relates to existing regulations and a promise made in a public inquiry that took place as part of the inquiry on the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. That section of the road has been built, although the remaining two sections have not, as I shall discuss later. Residents of Chester's Croft live in homes that are classified as mobile homes, although they are permanent, having been in existence for at least 40 years and possibly even longer. The homes have gardens and are raised on bricks, with no wheels in sight.
Chester's Croft is a very pleasant place to live, but it is right next door to the new road. If its residents lived in normal brick-built residential dwellings—permanent homes, as the law would have it—they would have the right to claim compensation for noise generated by the new road running alongside their homes. However, they do not have that right because of the way in which their homes are classified. The Government agree with me that they should have that right, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the other place sent me a letter apologising for the fact that the promised regulations have still not been introduced. The residents have waited for at least six years for such regulations, so, again, I hope that the Government can find time for something that they accept will bring only benefit to my constituents and, I suspect, other hon. Members' constituents as well.
My understanding is that probably since the noble Lord wrote to me to apologise for the delay, the regulations have been and are still being checked by the Department's solicitors. What on earth are they checking? The regulations exist; they simply need to be applied to mobile home owners. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give my constituents some sight of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel as they wait for the promises to be delivered.
As hon. Members can see, there are in my constituency a number of outstanding problems of serious concern to the people who live there. The third matter is the Manchester airport eastern link road, a subject that I have raised so many times in the House that I have almost lost count, but I shall persist until that motorway is completed.
The central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road is in existence. It runs from the A34 south of Cheadle through to the Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford. A junction exists between those villages that was never intended to exist.
A large campaign was mounted, and more than 7,000 people in my constituency signed a petition. The petition was left in post offices; it was not taken around and people were not asked or pressurised to sign it while they were out shopping. People who went into their local post office willingly signed it, asking the Government to help to complete the road.
The Manchester airport eastern link road, one would think, should join the airport. It does not. The main route south of the M56 to Manchester airport means that through Finney lane and Heald Green, where the missing western section should be, there is a narrow road through the village of Heald Green. My constituents there cannot get their cars out of their driveways and on to Finney lane during rush hour.
The eastern section should link up to the A6M Hazel Grove bypass. I see that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place. I shall not say too much about what is, strictly speaking, a matter for him as the local Member of Parliament. I know that he shares my view, and that I will not be expressing any view with which he does not agree. The many hon. Members representing the area want the motorway network completed. What have we got in its place? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would be willing to tell us, perhaps less politely, outside the Chamber.
We have a study. Wowee! A road network for which my constituents have waited 30 years is again being studied, after umpteen public inquiries into the need for the roads to be completed. That is basically a mechanism for the entire issue to be kicked into touch.
The petition that I mentioned, with more than 7,000 signatures voluntarily given, was presented to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The previous Government gave a starting date for completion of the western section through to the airport and for completion of the eastern section from Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford through to the A523. The A6M is a slightly different story in terms of progress on public inquiries and so on.
My constituents suddenly found that when the Government changed, the new Government took away everything that had been promised to them. I do not wish particularly to get angry or annoyed with the Government, although many of my constituents would. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament and my communities are not the only communities in the country to have suffered similarly from such decisions.
I merely plead with the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of my constituents to ensure that the study is real, even though I would prefer a decision. We just need the road built. Matters get worse and worse. There is to be a second runway at Manchester airport, and traffic, we know, will increase. We have well over an additional 20,000 to 30,000 car movements a day from shopping centres built alongside the existing section. The pressures are enormous.
I wish that the House could have debated and voted on the matter before we rose. If hon. Members came with me—all would be welcome—to Bramhall and Woodford at one end and Heald Green at the other, and, while they were there, went to Hazel Grove, at the invitation of hon. Member for Hazel Grove, they would see that what I am saying is nothing less than the truth, and it is the message that my constituents desperately want to be heard.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) should have spoken about a long, dark tunnel because I want to talk about our railway heritage. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here today to listen to the debate. Unusually for an Adjournment debate, I shall not ask him or his ministerial colleagues to do anything in particular, other than to give moral support to our railway heritage.
First, I should say that I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Company, which is a non-profit-making company, so I do not receive a dividend. I am also president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society and vice-president of the Keighley bus museum and the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
I want to say a few words in praise of railway preservers or preservationists—I am not sure what to call them, but not, as they are sometimes described in the media, railway buffs, anoraks, amateurs or people playing at trains. I dislike such terms intensely. I am talking about men and women with the many skills needed to run a railway professionally in accordance with the precise and high requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. They simply want the pleasure of preserving the nation's industrial, transport and, often, architectural heritage, so that we and future generations can understand and appreciate what went before.
The wonderful assistants in the Library have provided me with a list of UK heritage railways. It starts with the Alford valley railway, the Amberley museum and the Appleby Frodingham Railway Preservation Society, and finishes with the Wensleydale Railway Association, West Clare railway, West Lancashire light railway and West Somerset railway. I do not know a great deal about those railways, but there are approximately 100 railway preservation societies, all staffed by men and women who are dedicated to the preservation of railways, locomotives and carriages.
The preservation society that I know best is the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society so I shall dwell on that, not to the exclusion of all else but, because what has happened during the more than 30 years of that society's history is typical of how railway preservation in Britain has progressed. My late husband, Bob Cryer, started the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society in 1961 as a result of the Beeching closure of the line from Keighley to Oxenhope. He called a meeting which was attended by more than 100 local people. The original idea was that the line should be preserved as a public service, but that was found to be too difficult so the preservation society was established, and still exists.
At that time, only one other railway was operated by volunteers, and that was the Bluebell railway in Sussex. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway was the second


in the country to take on the responsibility of running a railway. I think it is fair to say that the Bluebell railway made the mistake of appointing a "fat controller" or "Sir Topham Hat" to run the railway, and arguments developed between him and the volunteer force. Volunteers like to be treated as what they are—talented, skilled, capable people. I am afraid that what happened with the Bluebell railway did not suggest that that was appreciated, and, subsequently, things started to fall apart fairly quickly. However, the railway changed its schemes later, and I believe that Sir Topham Hat—he was not really called that, of course—was disposed of.
In the Worth Valley railway society, we learned from that mistake. My husband recognised that the railway needed to be run more like a local authority, or a co-operative. Accordingly, a number of committees were formed to run the various departments. The committees have representatives on the railway's central council, and it operates in the same way to this day. It is a highly democratic organisation: those who do the work make the decisions. I do not think there can be any better demonstration of democracy than that.
Things have changed during the railway's history. As I said, we took it over in 1961, but I think that about four years passed before we had the right to run trains over the Worth valley metals. The Worth Valley railway society purchased the line from British Railways on the basis of a sort of hire-purchase agreement, and it opened to traffic in 1967. For the first few years it ran trains only occasionally, but the traffic gradually increased. Currently, we run trains throughout July and August, during bank holiday weeks and at Christmas, and we run plenty of special trains. For instance, in a couple of weeks we shall have a "Thomas the Tank Engine" special day or two. Such events attract many people to the railways.
We need support, but those who give their time and talents to running the railway can do so only if they too are supported by people who pay fares to go on it.
The Government have supported us indirectly, through the heritage lottery fund. The fund has just given the railway money to build sheds at Oxenhope to house the many locomotives and carriages that we now own. It is not only a rare but a large collection, and it needs to be protected from the severe weather that we have in the Worth valley. We hope that the sheds will eventually be erected at Oxenhope; I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for helping us with advice on applying for lottery support.
We also need places to put our engines and carriages during the railway's redevelopment at Oxenhope. They are very old and will need protection. We expect them to be moved to aircraft hangars and other sites across the country.
I hope that what I have said will encourage hon. Members and those outside the House to visit, support and possibly even join railway preservation societies. They can be assured of a warm welcome on the Worth Valley railway and, I am sure, many others.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for listening, and, as I say, I hope that my speech will encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit and become involved with their local railway preservation societies, wherever they are.

Mr. Mark Oaten: I want to raise an issue that I am constantly warned not to raise on the Floor of the House. I am told that raising it seems like self-interest and whingeing, and sends a signal that whoever raises it does not really want to be a Member of Parliament.
The issue that I want to raise is modernisation of the House of Commons, and changing the role of Members of Parliament. I am aware that it is once more a topical issue, following last week's decision by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) to announce, quite publicly, that she would not stand at the next election. That prompted considerable concern about the workings of the House of Commons. In my maiden speech, after I was elected three years ago, I made some observations about being a Member of Parliament. I was told by a colleague that that was most unwise, it was better to put up with the situation—not moan or complain—and my constituents would not understand if, having worked so hard to get here, I started complaining about the process.
There is a reluctance among some hon. Members in all parts of the House to raise the matter because it makes them seem unhappy with the job. I love the job and enjoy being the Member of Parliament for Winchester—but I am deeply dissatisfied with the process by which we serve. I want that changed not out of self-interest but because I genuinely believe that the manner in which we operate is not good for the country. Other hon. Members will follow the hon. Member for Gloucester, and prospective parliamentary candidates may be discouraged from standing for election.
Over the past week in particular, there has been much press focus on women MPs, who are said to be fed up with the working hours. I believe that there is cross-party disquiet among hon Members of both sexes. If male Members do not argue the point, it will be said that the Blair babes are revolting on the issue when concern goes much wider.
Much time has been spent studying why the electorate are turned off politics. In the mayoral and local council election a few weeks ago, many attempts were made to improve turnout. Watford, example, tried holding elections on Saturday or Sunday, with polling in Asda or Tesco. I welcome those innovations but the evidence is that turnout did not increase in many cases. I believe that one factor turning off the electorate is the workings of Parliament that they see on television every night of the week.
Those who argue for a change in our working hours are not doing so to get to lie in bed longer in the morning or take longer holidays. It is a question of using the time that we have more effectively. I am arguing that we should work not fewer hours, but more sensible hours, and that we should structure the parliamentary week in a much better way. When the Modernisation Committee considers the matter the week after we return from the recess, I hope that it will look carefully at the radical options, which include a fixed working week with fixed hours. We could debate for ever what those hours should be. My personal preference is for a guaranteed finish at 7 o'clock, with a change in the hours of Select Committees, with some sitting in the evening.
In one sense, time is not the issue. The critical factor is predictability, so that one knows what is going to take place. I do not mind staying here until 2 am to debate emergency situations in Kosovo and Sierra Leone or major domestic issues but I object—

Mr. John Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the few weapons available to the Opposition—I will not say whether I approve—is time? Does he propose taking that weapon away from the Opposition?

Mr. Oaten: No, but I do not believe that that weapon is used by the Opposition. It is used by a couple of hon Members who want to throw the business of the House into chaos. Speeches made by those hon. Members at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning contain no points of substance. I am not convinced that they are a serious challenge to the Government on key issues. Such speeches are designed to play public schoolboy games. I do not believe people have any time for hon Members who do such a thing at that time of night. I am more than happy to be here if the Executive is being held to account. It is not.
When I tell constituents about the time scale that we work to, sometimes going through to 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, they cannot believe that the Government are making critical decisions at that time in the morning. What other sensible organisation would make its most important decisions at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when hon. Members are tired and often tetchy?
The House of Commons Library has produced a number of figures on how Parliaments operate throughout the world. I have not had a chance to read that in detail, but I believe that we are the Parliament that works longest and that sits until the latest hour, apart from Australia, which sits until 11 o'clock on Mondays, so the Modernisation Committee needs to look carefully at the issue of hours.
I want to move on to some of the other issues, because we are in danger on getting hung up on thinking that modernisation is just about hours. It is about many more things, too. The tag on to the hour issue is electronic voting and the way in which we physically vote in the House of Commons.
I know that the issue has been looked at in the past and that Members have rejected it. I think that the various options confused many Members. That was probably one of the reasons why there was no clear vote in favour of electronic voting. If there is a cut-off point of, say, 10 o'clock, when business is guaranteed to end, because of the voting system, the House can often go through to 11 o'clock or 11.30, if there are four or five votes after that time. Again, that is nonsense.
The argument that we need to have pushing and shoving down two corridors because it is an opportunity for hon. Members to bump into other hon. Members, or indeed to rub shoulders with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does not seem credible. Their voting records suggest that those right hon. Members are not in those corridors anyway, so there is not much chance of bumping into them.
Divisions are one of the rather amusing anecdotes that we can tell in after-dinner speeches. During a tour of the House of Commons, one of the amusing moments is when constituents are made to push and shove through the corridors. Everyone has a good laugh. It is all very funny when we are showing constituents around in the morning. It is a lot less funny and seems very silly when it is done at 11 and 12 o'clock at night. I see no reason why we cannot quickly move to electronic voting to speed up that process.
The image of the House of Commons itself raises wider concerns about why we find it hard to engage the public in politics and to encourage young people in particular to get involved in the political system. If we step back and look at the image that comes across on the television screens, what do we see? For example, there is the issue of whether we can clap in the Chamber. If someone makes a good point, instead of clapping—which is universally accepted throughout the world as the way of showing support and appreciation—we all have to go, "Hear, hear, hear" and we sound like a bunch of farmyard animals. When people watch that on television, they do not understand. They cannot understand why that sort of noise is coming from grown men and women. That turns people off from looking at politics.
There is also the issue of attracting your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, when people are looking at the House of Commons, they do not understand why it is that we are all bobbing up and down trying to catch your eye. They write to us asking whether we can make a point on the Floor of the House, raise a question or try to participate in a debate. They do not understand when we say, "I will bob and up and down, but there is no guarantee that I will be called in that debate."
One of the problems is that, often, not many Members are in the Chamber itself. The difficulty is knowing whether they will be able to catch the Speaker's eye during a debate. There must be a better system of guaranteeing fairness, so that both sides can take part in the debate, obviously allowing for spontaneous interest and for interventions to take place in the debate. Surely, there must be a more formal way in which we can guarantee that Members will get individual slots, rather than having to try to catch the Speaker's eye in the rather old-fashioned way of bobbing up and down.
I add another thing about image: the issue of calling hon. Members "hon. Members" and not being able to use the word "you" in the Chamber—I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have not just picked me up on that. There are occasions when the word "you" is used and is not meant to be a deliberate phrase against an individual, but the amount of times that I have been picked up on that in Committee is immensely irritating, and it stops the flow of thought. I find it very difficult. I am amazed at how Members and Deputy Speakers can do it, but I cannot remember the names of the constituencies of hon. Members. I would like to refer to them more often, but feel held back from doing that because we have to call them "hon. Members."
I had hoped to speak for only 10 minutes—to make the point that one of the ways in which the House could be improved would be for hon. Members to speak less—but I beg the House's indulgence to allow me quickly to make two more points, the first of which is on the resources and facilities provided to hon. Members.
Like other hon. Members, I have found it extremely difficult to work within our office cost allowances. Although my bank manager would tell me that I have always been bad with money, I have to say that, as evidence shows that more than 100 Members of Parliament overspent their most recent office cost allowance, we cannot all be bad with money. The allocation that we are given to run our offices is simply not adequate.
By the time that I have paid £12,000 for my rented office in Winchester—where one cannot find a cheaper office—and a similar amount to a researcher and to a secretary, in Westminster, to a dictation secretary, in my constituency, and for computers, I have nothing left. If hon. Members are going to be proper, democratically accountable Members of Parliament, providing a good service, they have a serious problem if they are not being provided with adequate resources to do the job properly.
I believe that the solution lies in having fewer and better-resourced—but also much more accountable—Members of Parliament. That is why I argue that there should be a legal requirement for hon. Members to produce an annual report, which would go to all their constituents, list what they have done, show that they are accountable and try to restore the link between the public's election of someone to this place and their knowledge of what those individuals are doing here, other than disappearing for four or five years.
If we made more resources available to hon. Members, but required them to be accountable, we would also help to restore the role of Members of Parliament, which is not highly valued in many constituencies.
I hope that the Modernisation Committee does not limit its work to narrow changes and to tweaks at the edges. I accept that, in this Parliament, we shall perhaps make progress only on hours and electronic voting. However, I believe that there is an enormous opportunity for the Government—a modernising Government who want to reconsider issues and be positive about creating a new democracy—to do some significant work, to bring in some consultants and to consider examples from around the world, to make real change in the way in which we run democracy.
My hope is based not on self-interest, but on a genuine belief that the way things are being run is not good, that we are turning off good people from coming into politics, and that we are turning off the electorate from the work that we do.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: I agree with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I agree with his concern about the House's long hours—working, as he said, until 2 am or 3 am—which certainly do not deliver better government. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with some of the sentiments that he expressed. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them.
I should like to raise an issue only briefly, although it is very important issue for one of my constituents—Mr. Whittaker, of Guisborough, which is a market town

in my constituency. He is one of a number of now elderly gentlemen who served this country in uniform in a now largely forgotten episode. He served, between 1952 and 1955, as a corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, based in Abusultan. I should like to concentrate on the circumstances in which he served this country, and on the national service men who served in Egypt and the canal zone between 1950 and 1955.
Their service was largely overshadowed by the fact that, at the same time, the Korean war was raging, and, later, by the wars in Malaya and Borneo and the onset of the Suez crisis. I shall not attempt to argue against, or to justify, their presence in Egypt. They were there as a result of the colonial past meshing with the need to protect something that—in the days when there was still an east of Suez dimension to defence and trade policy—was regarded as a key strategic asset: the Suez canal. The bases were established to protect the canal.
As I said, Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were national service men, and they probably hoped that their three years in that role would be quiet ones—spent square-bashing or potato-peeling in Aldershot or Catterick. Instead, the then Egyptian Government's abrogation of treaties made between Egypt and the United Kingdom—because of disagreement over management of the canal, and the rise of Nasser's young officers group—resulted in political tension spilling over into riots and guerrilla activity. That activity was intense, involving pitched battles and, sometimes, an armoured response.
In January 1952, for example, C company of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers had to storm a police barracks in Ishmaelia. Under intense sniper fire, they had to have the support of Centurion tanks from the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, which had to shell the complex. Five British service men were killed in that one episode.
Similar incidents occurred across the canal zone and throughout the complex of British forces bases in the country. Military historians have argued that the intensity of the conflict mirrored the conflict in Palestine—where, some years before, British troops again had to hold the line.
The incidents were, sadly and inevitably, not without casualties. Officially, it is estimated that 55 to 60 British service men were killed by enemy action. The total death loss, however, was far higher. The Suez veterans group estimates that the total number of service dead reached more than 300, with many deaths being caused by accidents, handling live ordinance or mine clearing.
I am speaking in this debate for a simple reason: unbelievably, despite this history, those deaths and the fact that Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were conscripts in what was essentially a war zone, they have never received official acknowledgement of their service and bravery by the award of the General Service Medal.
I understand that the reason for not making the award was that, in 1952, the Army Council did not consider the canal zone to be a fully fledged active service area. The council's judgment, however, was made in that period and without the benefit of historical oversight, and that view was contradicted by later military judgments, after the Army had had to respond to events as they unfolded. The contradiction has been admitted.
In a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie)—who was replying to my request for the award of the General Service Medal to Mr. Whittaker and his comrades—I was told:
I am aware that service personnel were on declared active service during the certain periods whilst in the Canal Zone.
Active service is active service, whether it is spent in a regular campaign between opposing forces or in combating undercover and sporadic guerrilla activity. There is also an analogy with Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend admitted in his letter to me. He went on to say that
members of the Armed Forces who serve in Northern Ireland are eligible for the General Service Medal with clasp Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend, to compound the issue, went on to say that service men in Northern Ireland have
never been formally placed on active service.
That seems to be pure, absolute rubbish.
Let us consider other post-war flashpoints in which British service men have been involved, such as: Kenya, where 10 service men were killed; Malaya, where 509 were killed; Palestine, where 223 were killed; Cyprus, where 73 were killed; the 1956 Suez invasion, in which 12 were killed; Borneo, where 79 were killed; and Aden, where 24 were killed. All those operations were seen as eligible for award of the General Service Medal, and the officers and men who fought in those campaigns can wear their medal ribbons with great pride. Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues are not being allowed to do the same.
I think that it is a matter of total oversight. I believe that the omission is morally wrong. I realise that the line taken by the Ministry of Defence is that the issue has been reviewed, and reviewed by senior military advisers, but those advisers saw no reason to dissent from the Army Council view that contemporary judgment is sounder than retrospective judgment. I beg to disagree with them: I believe that retrospective judgment often is better than contemporary judgment. Retrospective judgment allows for comparison and for historical oversight—which includes matters such as the campaigns that I have listed.
There is a view—to which I do not necessarily subscribe—that the 1952 decision, in the context of that time, was perhaps militarily and politically expedient. It is time for the Ministry of Defence to do some serious research into the reasons for that decision and for all the papers to be produced.
One issue above all should be looked at. I have been told that the one person who, above all others, should have been listened to—the then commander in chief of British forces in the middle east, General Sir Brian Robertson—was of the firm opinion that service men in the canal zone should qualify for the general service medal. The issue should be cleared up once and for all. If General Robertson made such a view clear in correspondence, it alters the entire picture and my constituent, Mr. Whittaker, and his colleagues should get the official recognition that they so richly deserve.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the Ministry of Defence to unlock and dust down the archive files from the Army's historical branch and to undertake a full review. I am not alone in making this request. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have also

raised the issue of justice for canal zone veterans. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we all want this historical injustice to be rectified. I urge him to speak to the Ministry of Defence and press as strongly as he can for the changes that I have asked for. Thank you for allowing me to raise this important issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. David Atkinson: On Wednesday 12 April, I sought to catch your eye to speak in the debate on asylum seekers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I failed to do so. I am glad that I failed, because I can now add to what I had proposed to say on that occasion to reflect an alarming situation concerning asylum seekers in my constituency and elsewhere in Bournemouth.
At least 10 per cent. of asylum seekers in this country come from countries that are free of persecution. They have minimal grounds for seeking asylum, and instead of a lengthy period awaiting assessment of their claim, followed by a further period for appeal, they should have the fastest of fast-track procedures consistent with international law. There continues to be a case for maintaining a white list of safe countries from which any asylum seekers would more appropriately receive automatic detention.
I am referring to member states of the Council of Europe. The citizens of most of those countries enjoy the best human rights protection in the world. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) in the Chamber. Like me, she is an active member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The human rights protection in member states is legally provided for by the European convention on human rights, which all member states have to ratify and which is enforced by the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which Governments and member states are obliged to honour. Most member states have adopted the convention as part of their domestic law, as we are now doing.
A majority of member states have signed and are ratifying the torture convention, the European social charter, the European cultural convention and the new framework convention on the protection of national minorities. It is therefore reasonable to start from the premise that those who seek asylum on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution from member states of the Council of Europe are the least likely to have a case. Our procedures should reflect that.
I exclude from my arguments those who come from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, whose recent and current ethnic conflicts provide justifiable grounds for the fear of persecution. However, most of those countries have yet to join the Council of Europe.
Last year, there were 10,000 applications from Council of Europe member states—3,000 more than the previous year. That figure does not include dependants, so the real figure is much higher. The applications come from citizens of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Turkey and other member states. It may not be widely appreciated that each of those countries is subject to a procedure that monitors in the greatest detail the commitments and obligations that they have entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe. That monitoring is done by the Parliamentary Assembly, through its monitoring committee, and separately by the Committee of Ministers.
Apart from the regular fact-finding visits of the rapporteurs, those procedures take the fullest account of reports and submissions from Human Rights Watch, the Helsinki Foundation, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other non-governmental organisations, including those in the countries concerned. There is no doubt that there is no persecution in Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech and Slovak Republics or Bulgaria, and there are very few grounds for their citizens to seek asylum elsewhere, yet they represent 10 per cent. of the total coming to this country—7,000 last year—costing local authorities £30 million, which is equivalent to nearly 1,000 new police officers.
The Government should introduce the most efficient procedures possible to deal with asylum seekers from Council of Europe member states, in which, as our embassies will confirm, there is no persecution. That should also apply to the backlog of those already here from those countries.
Before someone reminds me, I am aware that there are a lot of dissatisfied Romas—or gypsies—in many of those countries, who complain about police brutality and harassment, the hostility of those who live in their neighbourhoods and an inability to assert their cultural identity. However, those are not grounds for seeking asylum, or for being accepted as seekers of asylum.
The House may be aware that the issue of the failure of Governments to protect their gypsy citizens is awaiting a ruling in the other place, in response to the appeal of a Slovakian gypsy, Mr. Milan Horrath, who arrived here in 1997 seeking asylum for himself and his family. He claimed persecution not by the state that he had left, but by skinhead thugs.
If the House of Lords supported the argument of the Refugee Legal Centre, which is backing Mr. Horrath's appeal, that someone who is threatened with being beaten or killed by skinheads can be a refugee, it would open the floodgates to such claimants. If that happened, I hope that the Government would urgently pursue the issue in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, because there would be many member states that were, in effect, violating the European convention on human rights, and against whom appropriate action would need to be taken, as well as many other member states that would need to be prepared for many more seekers of asylum.
I conclude by describing what is happening in one road in my constituency on the way to the Southbourne Overcliff and beach. The road contains 17 hotels and guest houses among its 79 households, as well as three houses in multiple occupation—HMOs.
A couple of weeks ago, a resident from the road shared with me at my surgery her concerns about what has been happening since those HMOs started accommodating asylum seekers. She told me that the atmosphere has changed for residents and visitors, who are mainly young families, from one of tranquillity, relaxation and contentment to one of threats, fear and alarm. That has been confirmed by many other residents who have phoned my office during the past two weeks, at my suggestion, to share their concerns.
The picture is the same for all of them. Residents are being woken up or kept awake during the night by loud music, shouting, drinking, partying and cars revving and

screeching at all hours. During the day, men, many of whom have mobile phones—my constituents do not know how they can afford them—stand around leering at passers-by, especially young women. There are tales of drinking, shouting and spitting, and of residents having to walk through sick and urine. Windows in the street have been broken by stone-throwers and boarded up.
Many cars are parked on the street; they are old, battered and wrecked—many are without road tax, and, presumably, are also uninsured. If they were abandoned, no one could tell. There is also a report of someone being taken out of one of the HMOs in a body bag.
My constituents are feeling threatened. They can see in their street a decline into seediness and squalor. They fear not just the anti-social behaviour of their new neighbours, but the crime that might just follow. They do not complain for fear of being branded racist, or worse, of being accused of retaliation.
Those who run the 17 hotels and guest houses have every reason to fear that their businesses and livelihoods are now at very real risk. Their regular clientele, built up over years, can be lost through one bad experience. Passing trade will pass on. People's livelihoods are now at risk.
It is understood that Bournemouth has taken more than 300 asylum seekers in a number of hotels and HMOs used by Kent and the London boroughs. Two weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I received a letter from the chairman of the Bournemouth tourism advisory board, Councillor Jacky Harris, emphasising that while Bournemouth wants to play its part in the national dispersal scheme, it is essential for the council to have local control of where asylum seekers are accommodated; it is essential for them and for the community.
It is particularly crucial that nothing is done to discourage visitors and holiday makers from coming to the hotels and guest houses in the designated tourism core planning zones in seaside resorts such as ours where the local economy and jobs rely on tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West—who wishes to be associated with these remarks—and I have made representations along those lines to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I was not encouraged by her reply to me on 18 May, telling me that there is no requirement for one local authority to notify another before placing asylum seekers in accommodation in another local authority area. That has to be changed. Local authorities—particularly those such as Bournemouth, which rely on tourism—must have control over the location of HMOs that take in asylum seekers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and I will now write to the Prime Minister, seeking his personal interest and intervention. Last October, we in Bournemouth welcomed the Prime Minister and his party conference and we were pleased to do so. However, they may not return if they find that their hotels and guest houses are in the same streets as HMOs whose residents are behaving as I have described today.
I look forward to the Minister's response to my constituents' concerns.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000.
Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Electronic Communications Act 2000.

Orders of the Day — Adjournment (Whitsun)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. John Cryer: Like other hon. Members, I wish to raise a particular constituency issue, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—the erection of telecommunications masts for the burgeoning mobile phone industry. This issue has received a great deal of attention in the House. There have been three Adjournment debates, and, more recently, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled two early-day motions on the issue. In March, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter, and raised many of the issues that I want to raise today.
We now have the Stewart report, produced by the Stewart group, which deals with the problem of mobile phone masts. On the issue of the medical risks that might or might not be entailed by the erection of masts, the Stewart report equivocates to some extent. However, there are some interesting passages in it.
In the foreword, Sir William Stewart states:
the balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected.
Without wishing to be alarmist about the issue, that is enough to create doubt in people's minds.
The report also states:
Exposure to radiofrequency radiation below guideline levels does not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
However, the Stewart group concludes that
there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines. This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury but this is important information.
The prevalent fears of medical risks have led to 39 states in the United States banning any further development of mobile phone masts, while in Australia there are exclusion zones of 500 metres around hospitals, schools and residential areas, within which masts cannot be erected.
In most cases there tends to be a presumption that we will allow things to develop to some extent until there is some evidence to show that there is a medical risk. In Australia and the United States, however, there tends to be the reverse presumption: that such developments will

not be allowed—at least, not where people are living, going to school or in hospital—until there is evidence to conclude that there is no risk attached to the erection of this kind of technology.
I have many constituency cases concerning the erection of mobile phone masts. One example involves Towers junior school in Hornchurch. Orange—a big corporation, as these corporations tend to be—plans to erect a mobile phone mast a few yards from the school. Understandably, that is causing some alarm. I do not wish to be alarmist, because there is no substantial evidence of a risk, but there are fears and suggestions that there may be risks.
There are also fears that there may be particular risks to the young. It is ironic that Orange wishes to put the mast near a junior school. The brains of young children under 12 are still developing and their skulls are less resistant to radiation. The Stewart report mentioned that, saying:
If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.
That suggests that there should be some changes in the way in which we treat mobile phone technology.
The Government's response to the report contained some welcome elements. For one thing, they plan extensive research into the medical risks. I would like to ask them to consider sending the relevant Minister to the House to make a statement explaining what kind of research will be done, how long it will take and what its nature will be. The statement could suggest what the Government's intentions for the research were.
More immediately, there are planning issues in connection with the erection of mobile phone masts. At present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, masts lower than 15 m do not require planning permission. In their response to the Stewart report, the Government said that they were minded to change that, so that masts under 15 m would need full planning permission. That is extremely welcome, but PPG8 gives a presumption in favour of giving the go-ahead. I should like PPG8 to be made more neutral so that communities' concerns could be taken into account.

Mr. Oaten: The Government, in their response to the report, felt that they should err on the side of caution and advised that youngsters should not use mobile phones, even though there is no evidence that they are harmful. Would the hon. Gentleman recommend the same cautious approach to positioning masts near schools, even though there is no evidence that they are harmful?

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is right about the advice on the use of mobile phones. I have said that there should be exclusion zones around hospitals, schools and residential areas and that mobile phone masts should be placed in more isolated positions.
There are problems with planning permission for mobile phone masts because the companies behind the telecommunications industry tend to be extremely large, often multinational, corporations. Although councillors on a planning committee may feel inclined to reject a planning proposal, they will not do so because that would go against council officers' advice that there are no legal grounds for rejection, and the corporation could take its


case to a higher court, which might lead to the council being surcharged. It is unlikely that such action would be taken, but that fear has led councillors to give masts the go-ahead when they would rather reject the application until there is more evidence about the precise effects of the mobile phone industry.
I turn now to the recent announcement by the Ford motor company that it is to end car assembly at Dagenham, where there has been a Ford plant since 1931. Henry Ford had the marshes drained and created that plant, which covers a large area. Ford's land is mainly in the Dagenham constituency, but some of it is in my constituency.
Ford has announced that car assembly will end, but the diesel engine plant will remain. I have talked at length to trade union officials, many of whom were instrumental in negotiating the deal that seems to have saved Longbridge. Their fear, and that of the work force, is that in the modern car industry it is highly unlikely that a stand-alone engine plant will survive for long. They fear that if car assembly disappears from Dagenham, the engine plant will eventually go, and everything else with it. Those fears may turn out to be unfounded, but I think that they are probably right.
I have talked about this many times to my hon. Friends, including Ministers, and expressed my fears. Pressure must be put on the Ford motor company to introduce new car assembly to Dagenham, perhaps through Mazda, which Ford now effectively owns, or Volvo, which has recently closed a plant. There may be other avenues, which the unions are exploring. It does not bode well for the plant that Ford has recently taken over Land Rover, which gives the company access to another diesel engine plant in Solihull. One has to ask why a big company, which previously had only one such plant, now needs two.
The matter involves global issues and more fundamental questions about how the economic system works. The car industry may start to move eastwards over 10 or 20 years, to central and eastern Europe, and, perhaps, the Pacific rim. That is a separate matter that can be dealt with only by Governments and international bodies, but it is the underlying fear of the trade unions and work force at Dagenham and elsewhere.
I also want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about how the House conducts itself. I have some sympathy with the idea of programming legislation, particularly at 3 o'clock in the morning when we are hanging around waiting for the next vote. However, Members' views tend to change when they move from opposition into government and vice versa.
There is a very good quote from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), when he was in government, in which he says that programming is a marvellous idea. He thought that all legislation should be timetabled because that would stop all the whingers and time-wasters on the Opposition Benches. That is ironic when one considers how he behaves these days—although he used to be a supporter of the Common Market and a member of the Communist party, so he has not been averse to changing his mind on several issues over time.
When we are in government, we think that the Opposition should not delay and that legislation should be passed—and on the whole, that is the right attitude.

I remember that our first all-night sitting was on the National Minimum Wage Bill. The Tories had stayed up all night to do their best to delay that Bill, but at 6 o'clock in the morning, when the final vote happened, we were able to rub their noses in it, which was brilliant because that legislation is one of the best things that we have done since we came into government.
On the other hand, in the early 1990s, the Tories were passing the poll tax legislation. Obviously, I was not in the House at the time, but I have many friends who were. Labour Members were up night after night trying to delay that Bill, and we were right to do so because it was one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation that any British Government have passed, certainly since 1945. Programming therefore involves the consideration of many issues.
I shall always be opposed to electronic voting because it would encourage hon. Members to feel that they could stay away from the House, and there would be less participation in its business. We are here to scrutinise the Executive, and I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Winchester, as a member of the Opposition, would say that that is why he is here.
Turnout at elections has very little to do with the behaviour in this place. We could introduce electronic voting, change the procedures of the House and programme every piece of legislation, but I bet that there would not be a significant increase in turnout in any of the elections that followed. The real reason for the fall in the number of people voting during the 1980s was the enormous increase in deprivation and unemployment caused by the previous Administration, which led people to feel alienated from the electoral process.
I remember reading in a national newspaper, about two years before the last general election, about a man in Wales who was prosecuted for pinching four lumps of coal to keep his family warm. It is difficult to imagine that one could convince people living in such poverty that they have a direct connection with the democratic and political process.
I think that such deprivation and unemployment were deliberately created by the previous Administration, because they tended to affect Labour areas. The closure of the pits and the steelworks and the complete decimation of the shipbuilding industry were politically motivated because they helped to undermine the base of the trade unions and the Labour party, and removed the traditional avenues into political activism. At one time, Hornchurch, and parts of the east end such as Beckton and Canning Town, had many dockers. When the docks went, the basis of political activism disappeared, and the same is true in mining and steel areas. A conscious effort was made to remove that basis.
Those are the issues that we must address. What can be done by people in Beckton, Barnsley, Glasgow or Liverpool, who might be the third unemployed generation in their family? The Government have started to tackle those issues, and there have been moves in the right direction, particularly in the redistribution of wealth. However, we still have a long way to go before we bring the people who suffered enormously during the 1980s and 1990s back into political participation.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: We have had an interesting debate so far, and I am sure that it will continue in that way. Many demands have been made for Government replies and action, and I am sure that the Minister will have plenty of excuses and explanations to offer.
During business questions earlier, my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), raised the matter of north-west devolution. Many people in the north-west want that project to go ahead, and I am sure that the same is true in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can illustrate the need for devolution by the failure that I have experienced in persuading the Government—or, more accurately, their agencies—to install a right-turn filter at a set of traffic lights on the A6 trunk road in my constituency.
That is a small example of how my constituents cannot get what is manifestly needed in their area because the necessary powers are exercised 200 miles away by people who do not know that the A6 is a trunk road, that it goes through Hazel Grove, and that it lacks a right-turning lane. The matter is not trivial: there have been several serious accidents in the area in the past six months, and one fatal accident, when a pedestrian was knocked down and crushed by a heavy goods vehicle.
It would be simple to make the road safe, but my constituents cannot secure the small change needed because it does not fit with the criteria set in London. I acknowledge to the hon. Member for Cheadle that I do not receive long petitions demanding devolution for the north-west, but constituents and relatives of the person who was tragically killed have asked me why the straightforward safety measures that I have described have not been put in place. I believe that ensuring that power is exercised nearer to where it makes a difference will be an important change.
Mention has been made already in the debate of the problems associated with mobile phone masts, and I doubt that any Member of Parliament has not had difficulties in that regard. The original relaxation of planning guidelines was designed to accelerate the development of the technology, but it has also caused problems.
The Orange company has erected a mast in Station road in Hazel Grove. The company claimed that the mast was less than 15 m in height and that therefore no permission was needed for its erection, but subsequent investigation found that it was taller than 15 m. The mast is situated in what I can only describe as a courtyard formed by the back yards of four streets of terraced houses, and it causes local residents a good deal of concern and anxiety.
The council has placed an enforcement notice on Orange because of the height discrepancy. The company—rather cheekily, I believe—has accepted that the mast is more than 15 m tall and has said that it is prepared to chop a bit off, but it has pointed out that the antennae on the mast would then be closer to the first-floor bedroom windows of the surrounding houses.
The company is challenging the council to say whether it wants to stick to the letter of the law in the matter, with a possible increase in hazard. The alternative is to let Orange get away with having a mast that is taller than the law permits.
The mobile phone companies have a poor reputation. They are losing the battle to convince residents that the development rights and relaxations that they enjoy are

justified. I support the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in hoping that the Minister will emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the matter.
Modernisation of the House, is a matter that has been raised a number of times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, it is almost impossible to debate this matter, in the House or elsewhere, without appearing to whinge about terms and conditions of employment for Members of Parliament. That inhibits some hon. Members with more moderate and considered views, who keep silent as a result. The more strident voices are the ones that get heard, which reinforces the impression that we give to the outside world.
I hope that the Minister will accept that, in my three years of service on the Modernisation Committee, I have tried to suggest some ways in which we might improve the House's procedures. Some improvements have been made, and I believe that they are to the benefit of the House.
On the assumption that there is a wider audience outside the House, however, I want to stress that modernisation is not about acting as a trade union for Members of Parliament. Our aim is not to ensure that hon. Members eventually only need to vote on Wednesdays before 7 o'clock, and that we can do so from our constituencies. Rather, we want to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Parliament. It is not about working shorter hours, or getting lots of money, or having access to lots of computers and assistants. Our goal is to ensure that Parliament's procedures are strong enough to enable us to hold the Government to account, to pass sensible legislation, and to represent our constituents effectively.
Many people, both in the House and outside, believe that Parliament is not effective in any of those ways. The Minister is a seeker of consensus and is, I know, concerned about these matters. I hope that he will reassure the House that the appearance that the Government's initial burst of modernisation has petered out over the past 18 months is deceptive and that the Government will support further modernisation.
I said earlier today that the Government's response to "Shifting the Balance", the report of the Liaison Committee on the work of the Select Committees, was extremely disappointing. I hope that the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the paper written by his boss, the Leader of the House, was just the opening shot in a process of negotiation, and that the House will be able to reclaim some more powers from the Government.
Finally, I must mention the plea made by the hon. Member for Cheadle about road schemes in our area. He and I fight shoulder to shoulder on this matter. The review of transport problems in the region is called the multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. That title is a mouthful—if an acronym of it were possible, it would have eight letters—and it is a replacement for a policy.
As was noted earlier, the second runway at Manchester airport will open early next year. It is projected that the number of passengers using the airport will more than double between now and 2015, rising from 17 million to 40 million. An extra 30,000 jobs are forecast to be created at the airport, and a significant proportion of passengers and workers will travel to the airport on the existing road network through my constituency of Hazel Grove.
That network cannot support the traffic that it has to carry at present. There is an urgent need for the multi-modal study to reach a favourable conclusion about investment in roads and other transport options, in my area and more generally in the borough of Stockport.
I hope that the Minister, when he answers the debate, will reassure the hon. Member for Cheadle and me that the problem will not be relegated to the "too hard to do this year" tray. I hope that the problem has not been palmed off on to a study as a way of deflecting pressure and aggravation. The consequences and impact for my constituents and constituents across Stockport are severe. The existing congestion problems will become worse with the expansion and development of the airport.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these matters in the debate.

3 pm

Ms Julia Drown: I wish to raise four issues on behalf of my constituents.
South Swindon has had significant problems with bus services over a number of years. Of course, many services are fine and a huge proportion of drivers do all that they can to meet their timetables. However, I frequently receive letters and comments from constituents about buses that do not turn up on time, or are dirty, or have drivers who are not sensitive to the fact that my older constituents take time to get to their seats. Such problems put people off using the buses. Unless we can ensure that our bus services are reliable and pleasant, with fares that are easy to understand, we will not deliver on our huge transport agenda which relies on buses as a main form of public transport.
I welcome the Transport Bill, which gives local authorities powers to strengthen their control over local bus companies. However, I am concerned about whether those power go far enough. We should not be shy about giving maximum powers to local authorities. It is clear that the market does not work when it comes to many local bus services. It is in the interests of two competing bus companies to ensure that their bus gets to the bus stop 30 seconds before the other company's to pick up the passengers. The more powers local authorities have to deal with bus services, the better the bus services will be in my constituency, and the more likely we are to be able to try to get rid of the worst ones. Dealing with the problems will make the buses work in the interests of our constituents—the passengers. I should like the Government to look at whether we have done everything that we can on fare policies and frequency of services so that we can deliver the services that our constituents need.
I have regular talks with my local bus companies. I think that they are doing everything that they can to make services more reliable, but they are very concerned about the competition authorities, which virtually tell them that they should not co-operate to deliver the services that our constituents need. The bus companies feel the push from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to deliver a service, while the competition authorities are ready to slap them down if they are seen to co-operate too much in the market.
There remain real difficulties, which I hope that the Government will consider as we follow the Transport Bill through to delivery in our constituencies. Unless we can

have really good-quality bus services, we will not be able to deliver the whole of the transport and environmental agenda.
The second issue is child care. The impact of the working families tax credit has been incredible. Family after family has told me what a huge difference it has made. When a bill comes through their door, they do not need to go into a panic or a sweat, because, for the first time, they are being rewarded for being in work, and it is making a huge difference.
I have had a few letters from constituents who have looked to the working families tax credit to help them with child care costs. They were very pleased that the Government launched a national child care strategy and delivered more child care places in my constituency. However, many of my constituents who are in low-paid work, particularly shiftworkers, want to use nannies, because they want their children to be looked after at home. Not many child minders are willing to look after children at night, which is what shiftworkers need. They are disappointed that, when they look into the detail of the working families tax credit, they find that it does not cover those costs. The Government should look at that problem. I know that the Government are concerned that if they are putting public money into supporting child care, it should be regulated in some way, and I understand that concern. But how much difference is there really between child minders and nannies? Is it not just a case of whether children are looked after in their home or in their neighbours? Surely we can come to a compromise to help low-paid workers in my constituency, particularly shiftworkers, who cannot use child minders. Some people want to have their children cared for at home, and they should have Government support for child care so that they can benefit from the working families tax credit as so many other families are.
My third point also comes from my constituents. There are strong environmental groups in Swindon, and people have an environmental focus to their thoughts. They want to see much more recycling and much greater emphasis placed on the environment. I know that they will be pleased that the Government published their waste strategy earlier today. It emphasises the need to increase recycling and composting, and to reduce waste at source.
There is one section of the strategy that immediately raises concerns with me and I know that it will with my constituents, and I hope that we will be able to debate it in the future. It has put the recovery of energy, as it is described—incineration, in other words—on an equal footing with recycling and composting in the waste hierarchy. That has watered down the Government's desire in the consultation paper "Less waste more value" to move away from the previous Government's approach of putting energy recovery on a par with recycling.
We know the problems that can occur with incineration, such as hazardous emissions, an increase in traffic going to the incinerators and disputes over location. No one wants an incinerator in their back yard. Given those problems, and the huge enthusiasm for recycling, I hope that we can look at the issue further. Recycling creates jobs and contributes to our global environmental aims of carbon dioxide reduction targets. I hope that we will have a chance to debate that in more detail to focus more on recycling.
There has been some debate about Members of Parliament, and what happens in the House. A while ago I did some research on what happened to the waste from


the House. I started it at a time when, unbeknown to me, the House authorities were reconsidering the contract for waste. When I started my research, it was fantastic: all our waste was sorted and, sure enough, the paper went off for recycling. I thought that this was great, and that we were leading by example.
A little later, I was very disappointed to hear that the contract had changed, and that now all this paper—what some people might regard as all the hot air that is produced in the House and recorded—goes to contractors who make more hot air out of it by incinerating it. I hope that there will be a change in the House and at a national level. We are incinerating our waste and creating energy out of it rather than recycling it in the first place. That is an important issue for the House and the country.
My fourth and final point is an international one. International issues feature largely in my postbag at the moment. The debt campaign is still alive and kicking, and I am pleased about that. It is a really big issue affecting many countries. I know that the Government have done a lot, but we need to do much more, particularly with the summit in July coming up.
A number of constituents have also written to me about arms exports and the need for further arms controls. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) presented an excellent ten-minute Bill that would stop British people and companies being involved in selling arms to countries where arms embargoes apply. We must take a responsible attitude to arms sales, which do huge damage—often to civilians—that can rarely be repaired. Arms sales fuel conflicts, and we should minimise our involvement in them. We should use our talents in more productive engineering and manufacturing, and promote reconciliation and development, not arms sales. I know that the Government recognise the need for further legislation. Four years ago, the Scott inquiry recommended urgent legislation. We should register arms dealers and licence all the deals that involve United Kingdom companies and nationals.
My constituents have made it absolutely clear to me that dealing with arms sales is a priority. We must find time to take action now. The issue is not only of concern in Swindon but has widespread support in the House. An early-day motion on the subject has attracted support from 153 Members.
I hope that the Government will continue to look at those four issues, which are regularly raised by my constituents, who look forward to further progress on all of them.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House before it adjourns for a short break. I shall declare an interest; everyone does so these days. I am a member of the Essex wildlife trust. I say that because I intend to speak about its marvellous venture at Abbots Hall farm in Essex, which stems from a former constituent of mine—Miss Elliot. Those who are not intimately familiar with the Braintree division may not have heard of Lake and Elliot's major engineering works in Braintree—a major employer. Alas, it left the scene some years ago, but Miss Elliot continued to live in the town and left more than £1 million in her will to promote nature conservation in the county.
Having been interested in such matters since I was a boy, I am amazed how rapidly the awareness of nature conservation has grown during the past 40 or 50 years. I

was tempted to join a natural history society when nine years old, under the fine example of a teacher at Westleigh school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I was enthused by the prospects that it holds for people. At that time, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had 7,000 members; it now has more members than all the major political parties added together, which shows its popular appeal.
I originally come from Southend, which had the claim to fame of having one of the first municipal nature reserves in the county. A Southend Member and a former Southend Member are in the Chamber, but, in 1938, some far-sighted citizens had a tremendous battle on the borough council to acquire about 50 acres of ancient woodland on the edge of the town and preserve it for posterity before developers expanded estates over it.
The accounts of that great battle show that it was not easily won. The same arguments were used. Those who were opposed it as an absolute waste of public money said, "I went to those woods; all I saw was a crow." On that basis, they would have bulldozed the woods. That was not done, and the far-sighted borough councils expanded the woodlands to 100 acres after the war.
I mention that not because I come from Southend originally or because I represent a different part of Essex, but because it shows the tremendous strides that we have made. In Essex alone, the wildlife trust, which is now 40 years old, has 16,000 members. There are 92 nature reserves and 7,000 acres under nature conservation management in Essex, and it is not unique in such matters. The importance of conserving natural heritage is appreciated across the country. The late Miss Elliot's bequest is especially appreciated because she left so much money in her will to further that cause.
Abbotts Hall farm takes nature conservation a step further forward because it will never be entirely successful in our country unless there is a partnership between agriculture and nature conservation. Some 80 per cent. of Essex is arable farmland. Unless farmers and conservationists can co-operate we shall not preserve the flora and fauna.
We often read about the decline in common birds. The English partridge—so called to distinguish it from the French, but now called the grey partridge—has declined by 80 per cent. in the county. The skylark has also declined. People say, "I saw a skylark yesterday." No doubt, they did, but the point is that a few years ago they would have seen 10 or 20 skylarks.
We must be mindful that common birds are declining at an enormous rate. The only way to reverse that trend is to have a co-operative partnership between conservation and farming. That is why the scheme at Abbots Hall farm, which is on the Essex coast, is so farsighted. The money originally came from Miss Elliot's will, but the lottery and the World Wildlife Fund have put money forward and the Environment Agency is co-operating in the scheme, which raises every important issue in agriculture today.
The first issue is the managed retreat or managed realignment of coastal defences. The proposal is to adjust the coastline in co-operation with the Environment Agency, which is working closely with the Essex wildlife trust to create lagoons, cattle marsh and salt marsh, the effect of which on bird life is immense.
Secondly, the Essex wildlife trust intends to run 300 acres of arable land, mindful of the factors that can be used to improve nature conservation, enhance the


environment and make a profit. That is a bold test to take upon itself. It could be a beacon—a word that I dare not use normally—or, to put it in English, a way forward as to how it may be possible for farms to make a profit if they are farmed in a conservation-friendly way.
Those of us who are not farmers should not say, "Yes, we want nature conservation and all the wonders of wildlife, but we want you, Mr. Fanner, to pay for it." If we are genuinely to make great strides in nature conservation and enhancing our farmlands, the state must be more generous in the grants and support given to the farming community for such projects. I hope that the Essex wildlife trust can lead the way at Abbots Hall farm and show how that can be done. If it is successful, I would urge the Government and the European Union to be more broad based and generous in the grants that are available.
We often hear stories of doom and complaint, but I have referred to a story that, thanks to Miss Elliot's generosity and the co-operation of various agencies and the foresight of people in Essex, is an enormous contribution of which we can all be proud. Some people in the Braintree division say that the reserve should have been created in Braintree. Some earlier parliamentary redistribution took away our coastlines, but Braintree people are nevertheless more broad minded than to say that everything should stop at the Chelmsford boundary. In fact, the scheme will be benefit the people not only of Essex but of the whole country, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mr. David Kidney: I shall take this opportunity to mention two matters that affect my constituency but that have a national application. As that is the case, I appeal to the House to give them support. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government whom he represents, as well as to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sorry that my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is not with us for today's debate, but he has a happy, family engagement to keep him away from us. He always enjoys such debates and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys this one in his place. Finally, I appeal to hon. Members who are present for their support—I am content for them to express it by saying, "Hear, hear" at the appropriate moment.
The first matter concerns the magnificent response to the sad job losses in Stafford. The second is a national project that is planned for Stafford, a national centre for food.
First, ALSTOM, the power company—a great international company which has 100,000 employees throughout the world and has a base in Stafford dealing with the electrical power industry—unfortunately announced the loss of 730 jobs in Stafford in one go, which is one third of the total work force in the town. The company is the largest private sector employer in Stafford, so the House can imagine the devastation and sadness that that caused. There was a great dip in morale in the town because of the announcement.
Stafford has a proud history of connections with the power industry. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Siemens brothers established a factory in Stafford. They moved out with the first world war and English Electric took over, making a great business of it. At the peak, 14,000 people in Stafford worked for that company. With modernisation, the General Electric Company became the owners. It started a joint company with Alcatel, called GEC-Alstom, and eventually sold its share to that company. The business was then floated on the stock market as ALSTOM, with headquarters in Paris, and it remains the owner of the site.
Transmission and distribution equipment is sent around the world from those premises in Stafford. Recent contracts have been completed in Canada, China, India, south America and south-east Asia. Stafford has a great reputation in the power industry throughout the world, which brings me to the first national application.
The state of manufacturing in this country takes up much of our time at the moment. The business in Stafford was the sort that we are proud of, with highly skilled, value-added work and a reputation to match any in the world. However, the company has laid off a third of its work force in the town because of difficulty in securing overseas contracts. That is partly due to the present oversupply in the industry, but many of its major competitors are based in euroland countries and are benefiting from the mismatch between the euro and sterling. They have a huge price advantage in every competition to win contracts throughout the world. That is the heart of the difficulty.
I happen to agree with the Government's argument that there is nothing that we can do in this country to solve the problem of the weakness of the euro. Other organisations and other countries must take the decisions to solve that part of the problem. The job of our Government is to give practical support to manufacturing and to the other sectors that are exposed to the problem—farming and, increasingly, tourism—to get them through this difficult time. That means measures such as setting up British Trade International and giving support with exports, modernising export credit guarantees as we are doing, tax changes, giving capital allowances and research and development tax credits. All those are to the good and we must be determined to target them at our manufacturers.
When jobs have, sadly, to go owing to restructuring, as we are witnessing in Stafford, it means giving help to the poor people who lose their jobs—giving them the opportunity to find other jobs in their locality. We must not waste the skills that these ALSTOM employees have. Again, that brings me to the national application of the Stafford problem: how do we get those people jobs? There is not a huge number of other employers in the power industry near Stafford, but we have a great reputation in electrical power.
My vision is that we should carry forward that reputation into a new generation of power. The Government are trying to re-balance our energy demands and supply so that we use more new and renewable energy sources. I would like Stafford to take its part in that agenda of re-balancing the country's energy supplies. I want to make Stafford a centre of excellence for new and renewable energy sources.
To that end, I have taken the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, rolled up my sleeves and approached local people to establish a project to do just that. Between us we have arranged for business people, a solicitor and an accountant to give their time for free and for a banker to give free banking for the project, which is proceeding under the company name Renew Stafford. Our aim is to establish Stafford as a centre that is recognised throughout the world for this century's power needs and demands. I hope that in due course we will receive some Government support—after all, it is their policy to promote new and renewable energies—to get that project off the ground.
The management of ALSTOM throughout the United Kingdom have been extremely co-operative. The company is sad that it has had to dismiss a third of its work force in Stafford and it wants to help, so it is working co-operatively with the directors of the new company, Renew Stafford. I have no direct interest in the company as the business men who are giving their time for free are the directors. I praise ALSTOM, which has given the new company such enthusiastic support, for its responsible attitude. I hope that together we will be very successful.
Another national dimension of the job losses in Stafford is that the local authority, Stafford borough council, has also accepted its obligation to do something to help and has produced an exceptionally good-quality bid for the sixth round of the single regeneration budget. Its aim is to try to improve business services to link up more businesses in Stafford to the most modern information and communications technologies and to draw in new enterprises along those lines. It has had discussions with me and with the directors of Renew Stafford about how the SRB bid can link in with promoting Stafford's reputation as a centre for modern energy sources. I am pleased that the SRB bid and our proposal for a centre for new and renewable energy seem complementary. I am optimistic that the bid will have a successful outcome when it goes to the Government later this year.
Therefore, the first item was a sorry story that, I hope, will have a happy ending—we will find out later this year. The second item that I wish to raise is the proposal for a national centre for the culinary arts to be located in Stafford. Clearly, the national application is obvious—it is a national centre and will be the one and only showcase for British food and catering. It is a tremendously ambitious project and I am proud of the people who have had the vision to embark on it—mainly, the board of the British Food Trust. I do not know how many hon. Members know that Prue Leith, the famous cook, chairs the trustees. Having met her, I am delighted with her vision for the scheme, her enthusiasm for it and the breadth of her knowledge and contacts. I hope that she will be successful in locating the scheme in Stafford.
Stafford has been chosen because of its location in the centre of the country, with good communications by road and by rail. Also, it is in a beautiful part of the country, on the edge of Cannock Chase, with the Staffordshire moorlands to the north. It is an industrial heartland, with Stoke-on-Trent to one side and the black country to the other. Therefore, the site is excellent and premises have been located. English Partnerships, as it was, bought the site of the old St. George's hospital, which covers 28 acres and is in talks with the trust to deliver the project.
If it is successful, we will have a place in Britain that we can all visit and that will have exhibitions and displays about British food that is produced and cooked in this country. There will be exhibitions of catering, food processes and kitchens through the ages. People will be able to attend courses on the production, preparation and cooking of food. Related activities will include conferences and displays. There will be hotels and eating places on site, as well as retail outlets linked to the theme of British food.
I am sure that many Departments will want to support the scheme: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because of the tourism aspect; and the Department of Health because of its responsibility for food safety. The scheme offers endless opportunities to attract their interest and support. Indeed, hon. Members too will want to visit this new and exciting development in Stafford. The scheme has tremendous potential.

Dr. Kumar: rose—

Mr. Kidney: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend as long as he is not about to tell us that there are plans to build such a centre in Middlesbrough.

Dr. Kumar: Is my hon. Friend asking for cluster development support from the Government? From his description, the scheme would seem ideal for that form of development, which the Government promoted strongly in the competitiveness White Paper.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
I mentioned new and renewable energy sources. We are certainly trying to get support from the DTI for a cluster of power-related industries and suppliers. I know that there is Government money to support such development.
However, the national centre for food will stand alone. It will attract visitors from all over the country and will offer a superb showcase internationally for British food and catering techniques. I am not sure about cluster development for that scheme, although as I live in my constituency, I am optimistically looking forward to the great new eating places that are going to open there. That will be superb.
In relation to funding and to the point made by my hon. Friend, I think that the food industry, which is extremely successful in the UK, will be interested in supporting the project. I should like to see other developments around Stafford as a result of the industry's support for the national centre. If there is a cluster of locations and jobs, that would be an excellent development.
There will be much private investment because the idea is unique; it has exciting potential and there will be obvious gains for investors. However, it is intended that entry would be free to the centrepiece of the scheme—colloquially known as the great British kitchen. There would be no fee for displays of, and an education in, the history of British food—the public parts of the scheme. There is no doubt that that aspect will not be so attractive to private sector developers. The trust is concerned about whether the Government would consider the scheme worthy of public support if there were a gap between what


those developers would pay for and the overall funding needs of the project. However, I have mentioned so many Departments that it is inconceivable that there would not be some support.
The one difficulty that has arisen in my discussions with the trust, with Advantage West Midlands—our regional development agency—and with the Government office of the west midlands is that Stafford has never featured on any map of areas of deprivation or those in need of assistance. Sometimes, that is the key to obtaining investment. The Government may need a little ingenuity to justify investment in Stafford.
I hope that they will show such ingenuity for the following reasons. I described how well Stafford responded to a great shock recently. I am proud to represent an area whose people show such a great can-do attitude. We have never been an area of great deprivation because we have always managed for ourselves. However, at present, we have hit some choppy water and we shall be in some difficulty if we cannot pull through it. We have the right attitude; we want to overcome the problems. A helping hand from the Government at the right time will help us, so that we never appear on a map as an area in need of extra assistance. I hope that a little bit of preventive action from the Government will help us to continue to be the successful area that I am delighted to represent.

Mr. David Amess: The Minister will notice a difference in my tone on local matters. That is because on the first Thursday in May there was a political sea change in Southend. The council moved from Labour-Liberal control by one to Conservative control with a majority of 11. Every Labour candidate was defeated—as were all but two of the Liberal candidates.
The Conservative party campaigned on several issues; now, it is up to the party to deliver. The Minister will recall that, on occasions such as this, I often share my feelings on such issues with the House. I am, therefore, delighted to tell the House that the new Conservative council has decided to stop the ridiculous idea, introduced by the previous Lib-Lab council, of bus lanes all along the London road. They would have destroyed businesses and damaged the general environment of the area.
I am also delighted that the Conservative council has decided to change the ridiculous proposals for double yellow lines on either side of Hainault avenue, and that an especially vindictive action of the previous council—charges for people with learning disabilities—has been overturned. If the Minister can come up with a solution to how the Conservative council can defeat graffiti, I should be only too happy to pass it on.
Two weeks ago, I was privileged to be invited to the Barbican centre to attend the presentation of a bronze award to my constituent, Mr. John Foster. The event was organised by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It was the first time for 20 years that a Southend lifeboat man had received such an award. Mr. Foster was supported by helmsmen Michael Whistler and Ian Rees.
I shall not go into the full details of their heroic actions on 24 October, when they set sail in the Lady Jane. However, they were undoubtedly responsible for saving

the lives of three people. We heard two magnificent speeches at the presentation. The first was from the Princess Royal, who shared with us her experiences of the bravery of lifeboat men. Apparently, she launched the boat that rescued the three people—that was a nice touch. The second speech was given by the lady who has presented "Songs of Praise" for the past 13 years; she made a wonderful speech.
On that occasion, I was struck by the crazy circumstances in which the general public go out to sea—although I am not referring to the events that led to the award for my constituent. I am not a sailor. As soon as the water gets choppy, I feel desperately ill. However, when I learned from private conversations how some members of the public risk not only their own lives but those of lifeboat men, I could hardly believe it. In my extreme ignorance, I did not realise that one could buy any boat and immediately set out on the water. I knew that there was no test such as those for driving cars and motorbikes, but I thought that at least people received some training and a certificate before they could be in charge of a reasonably sized craft.
I heard of people going out in rough weather—despite all the warnings—without wearing a life-jacket. That is crazy. Will the Minister reflect on that point? If he does not have time to deal with it when he sums up the debate, perhaps he could write to let me know whether the Government have any plans on that matter. Although I applaud the bravery of all our volunteers, it is extraordinarily irresponsible of members of the public to risk not only their own lives but those of others.
My second point, which is about mobile telephones, has already been touched on. As a result of what I shall say, I will never ever be offered a consultancy by a mobile phone company. I am proud to say that I loathe the things. When I go on a train, I hear members of the public use their mobile phones. Their conversations are not private and they tell so and so—one cannot help listening—that they will be home in 10 minutes or that they have got on to the train. I do not know what their loved ones can do about the fact that they have got on a train. One cannot help listening to inane conversations, which presumably cost money.
I often wonder whether things are so desperately important that we have to be immediately accessible to a person at the other end of a phone. I have to admit that I own a mobile telephone, but that is because I won it in a raffle. I suppose that I could have given it to someone else, but I thought that it would be churlish to do that. I am not running up a telephone bill, but I buy units and use the phone in a mean fashion just in case someone genuinely thinks that he needs to contact me urgently.
I do not understand the technology, but, like the technology for fax and other machines, it is wonderful. However, our constituents are alarmed by what is going on. The Minister will probably say that it was all the fault of the Government whom I supported that companies are allowed to put up telephone masts. I must have had my eye off the ball, because I would have been more vocal if I had known that that was happening. If they did, I do not know why this Government cannot intervene to stop the process.
I wish to share with the House the flavour of the correspondence that I have had on the issue. In Cottesmore gardens, a mast was installed on 16 May.


The residents received late notice of its installation and the possible dangers of transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Although there is no evidence available that shows that such masts damage health, it is reported that
children have been seen as most vulnerable to mobile phone radiation because they are still growing and their immune systems are not fully developed.
The letters that I have received were triggered by an article that appeared in the Daily Mail. It said:
The Stewart Inquiry, led by Professor Sir William Stewart, is also expected to advise that mobile phone transmission masts should be kept away from schools, hospitals, and residential areas.
I have been inundated by letters, but I shall quote from just two of them. The first says:
I understand that the Stewart Inquiry is expected to advise against the installation of mobile transmission masts in residential areas. If this is indeed the case, surely any morally responsible and reputable company would not have continued with such a plan.
The second asks:
Is this really necessary? If it is dangerous to the health of our youngsters, we do not want it.
Other letters make similar points. I genuinely do not understand the technology of mobile phones; it might be marvellous. However, if it is true that the way in which they work somehow endangers people's health, we need to consider the issue carefully.
The masts are monstrosities. They look like rocket launch pads, they are being erected all over the country and they are hideous. On that count alone, we should unite against them. That might make us very unpopular with the companies, but so what? The matter is out of control, but I hope that the Minister will offer me some encouragement on that point.
I notice that hon. Members are beginning to twitch, so I shall make three final points. I asked my secretary to look up constituency correspondence that highlights policies that the Government have failed to deliver or that are unfair. Two of my constituents are happy for me to quote them, but the other one will have to be known as Mr. X.
The first letter is about Mr. Bowden's jobseeker's allowance. I was contacted by Mr. Bowden who wished to travel out of the country with his wife to attend his sister-in-law's funeral in Paris. However, as he was claiming jobseeker's allowance, he was informed by the Benefits Agency branch in Southend that, on leaving the country, he would have to provide it with a letter stating the dates that he was going and the reasons why. He would then have all benefit stopped while he was out of the country—in his case for a day, because he was going there and back on Eurostar—and, on his return, he would be asked to submit a completely new claim for jobseeker's allowance. The whole application process would begin from scratch. Goodness, that is ridiculous. Anyone with common sense would hope for discretion. Because Mr. Bowden had to travel to a bereavement, surely the behaviour of the agency was unreasonable.
My constituent contacted me because he thought that he was penalised for being honest. He honestly contacted the Benefits Agency to inform it that he would be absent for a day and because he thought that it could not be reasonably argued that attending a funeral in a close European country, such as France, makes one less available for work—perhaps, he could have had a

wretched mobile phone if he needed to be called urgently for an interview—than if he had had to attend a funeral in the United Kingdom.
I wrote to a Minister, but I shall not name that Minister. However, I will quote the letter that I received in reply. It said:
Decisions on availability for work, or whether restrictions placed on availability are reasonable, are made by the decision makers, who make decisions fairly and impartially on behalf of the Secretary of State. No one, including Ministers, can interfere with the decision making process.
The decision maker is the first tier of the decision making process. Their decisions carry the right of apply to The Appeals Service with a further right of appeal, on a point of law, to the Social Security Commissioner.
My constituent was obviously deeply comforted by that ministerial reply.
Sometimes we are guilty of hurriedly passing on by phone the covering letter that goes with such ministerial replies. However, that reply was not a very good one. Apart from the fact that it endlessly repeated the word "decisions", the answer was crazy. If the Minister gets a chance, I hope that he will send a message to the Department of Social Security and that, if he has the time, he will write to me about this issue.
I have the correspondence in which Mr. X wrote to me about television licences for the over-75s. He was concerned about the concession and he pointed out that when a married couple have enjoyed the benefit and the elder partner dies before the younger one reaches the age of 75, the concession will be taken away from the widow or widower until that person reached that age. As the survivor, particularly a widow, will almost certainly be worse off financially, it seems unfair that he or she will have to start paying the cost of the television licence on the death of a loved one. Before Labour Members ask about what the Conservative party suggested yesterday, may I say that I recognise that point? However, we have a Labour Government and it was their idea for television licences. I hope that the Minister will lean on the Department in the hope that we can have a sensible reply to my constituent's point.
My final point is about a concern expressed by Mrs. Day, a teacher at West Leigh school. This is what has happened to her over the past few weeks. She took up the Government's offer of the computers for teachers scheme in February this year. In order to take advantage of the offer, Mrs. Day borrowed the money from a friend. She paid £1,000 for the computer and duly sent off the completed form, expecting her £500 to be forthcoming.
The application form states:
Please allow one month from despatch for receipt of payment.
It is almost June and Mrs. Day has not received the payment, nor has she been contacted by the Department, despite more than 20 telephone calls. Not one of them has been answered by a human being—just the usual answerphone. She has tried telephoning at all times of the day.
Finally, on the 21st attempt, the phone call was returned. However, that was in the middle of a teaching day, and Mrs. Day, who did not have a mobile phone with her, was not available to take the call. The lady left two numbers on the answerphone but—surprise, surprise—calls to those numbers have not been acknowledged.
In April, Mrs. Day wrote to Caxton house. To date she has not received a response. Shortly afterwards, undeterred, she e-mailed and finally got a response. "Thank goodness!", I hear everyone cry. Unfortunately, the response to the e-mail bore no relation to the query that she raised. She has since found out that it was simply a standard reply.
We heard the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mention West Leigh school earlier. Besides Mrs. Day, six other teachers there took up the offer and are still waiting for their money. Without my pouring poison on the situation—I have no idea what the politics of those seven teachers are—I can report that they feel let down by the scheme.
I have found that locally, since the first Thursday in May, things are improving, but nationally, there are still matters that trouble my constituents, and I hope that the Minister will have good news for them.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Before I outline the main item that I intend to raise, I shall comment on one or two of the contributions made so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who discussed the employment problems and potential in his area, developed a theme that many of us could expand in relation to our own areas. I find that in North-East Derbyshire, although we are doing quite well in terms of economic growth and development, new jobs coming up, and the new deal, dramatic problems continue to arise.
Two major firms in the area have gone into receivership. One is Brian Donkin, a foundry at Renishaw, with the loss of 180 jobs. The foundry industry is particularly affected by the problem of sterling, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The second firm is Dema Glass at Chesterfield, which also affects North-East Derbyshire. A third firm that has gone into receivership, although that has not led to any unemployment, is Westwood Care, which runs five nursing homes in the north of Derbyshire. Whether receivership arrangements should apply to nursing homes, whose collapse could create a major problem for social services, is a matter worth considering.
In response to economic trends, there are moves by an outside firm to take over Biwaters of Clay Cross and Stanton plc in the Staveley area in my constituency. Both companies produce pipes, which are much needed for the movement of water in the third world, and both firms have had good contracts there. Both firms should have great potential, but instead there is considerable worry about what the change and rationalisation will mean. The level of sterling is not helpful. If that were tackled, the picture would be one of steady progress, rather than of steady progress associated with particular problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke about the bus service problems in her area, and we have many similar problems in North-East Derbyshire. We used to have excellent bus services—to the north, the South Yorkshire Transport provision was a beacon to the rest of the country, and Chesterfield Transport, which was well respected and served a large part of the area that I represent.
Now the major problem that we face involves Stagecoach, which operates 60 per cent. of the services in the area. A public inquiry is to be held in Chesterfield on

26 June into the operation of one of its licences, and I have received many complaints about other licences. A massive problem has arisen in the Mansfield area nearby, after 72 out of 80 Stagecoach buses were taken off the road—40 after the inspectors had issued notices, and the others removed by the company itself. That has a tremendous knock-on effect on other areas, such as Chesterfield, from where 19 buses have been taken away to serve Mansfield, which has led to a cut in services in the Chesterfield area. I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon with regard to the Transport Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a valuable contribution on recognition for those who had served in places such as the canal zone. I wondered whether I might be eligible for recognition, because in 1955—one of the years mentioned by my hon. Friend—I spent five days in the canal zone, but that might not qualify, as I was only in transit. I did the rest of my national service in Iraq, and if that had been a few years later, I might have acquired all the medals in the world for the action that was undertaken there. However, during my national service, I only ever heard one shot fired in anger.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke about modernisation and told us that he served on the Modernisation Committee. I was struck by the thought that here is someone who is into modernisation, whose trousers do not even match his jacket. Perhaps there is hope for us all—as regards not just modernisation of the House, but the notion of modernisation that is part of new Labour. Some of us whose trousers do not match our jacket may come to terms with that in future.
The principal matter that I want to raise concerns junk mail, which causes disruption and concern to masses of our constituents. A constituent came to see me at one of my recent surgeries and dumped a large black binliner on the table. It was packed full of unsolicited letters, all of them glossy and professional-looking, which had been sent to her mother.
The bag contained 390 letters which had been delivered to a 73-year-old over the past six months. The number is now up to 415, as 25 fresh items of junk mail have arrived in the past few days. Those letters are only a small part of what has been sent to a local pensioner. Piles of unwanted mail have simply been thrown away, especially those that arrived before the daughter started to collect a selection of them six months ago.
I have a handful of letters with me. Some are from addresses in this country, including Rainham, in Essex; Chelsea; a post box number in London; Chiswick high road in London; Surrey; and Luton. The great bulk of letters come from overseas, from Spain, Australia, Denmark, Singapore, France, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. A lot come from Canada and the United States, often from different places, but, even if they come from the same place, such as Kansas, often from different companies. This huge problem affects not only my constituent, who may be an extreme case in terms of the quantities received, but many others.
The letters come from a wide range of organisations, but they follow a similar pattern. They give the impression that the recipients will receive a big cash payment if they reply quickly. Among the enticements


are sums of £4,000, $25,000, and even a chance to win £30 million. Only when one reads the small print does one discover how the sender gets out of tipping up the money. The returned entry obtains only a lottery place and there is no way of checking that the lottery will even take place.
The scam is completed by asking the recipient to send a small entrance fee of, say, £19.95. Such fees are sometimes called a judging fee, a processing fee or a service fee. Others do not ask for a fee, but offer an object for purchase instead. Some people might then buy the object in the mistaken hope that it will give their lottery entry an edge. In one case, our pensioner was asked for £12.97 to obtain a stylised love-knot necklace. I am informed that when people send such money, only junk is returned.
Unfortunately, it is not illegal for a company to send out unsolicited mail unless the material is obscene, threatening, or deliberately, and, probably, entirely misleading in the offer that it makes. The scams that I have described generally avoid such pitfalls, although a number probably sail close to the wind.
Mail from overseas is particularly difficult to tackle. In late 1998, the Queensland postal service estimated that it had processed hundreds of thousands of responses from the United Kingdom to a lottery scam operated by a PO box in Australia.
Avenues to stem the flow of unwanted mail include the Mail Preference Service, the Direct Marketing Association, the Office of Fair Trading and the Advertising Standards Agency, but those are unlikely to staunch the flow of unwanted letters to my constituent. She cannot tackle this wide range of rip-off merchants either collectively or through a one-stop shop.
My constituent is not alone in her plight. The "Sorted" column in the Daily Mirror has pursued the problem on behalf of thousands of its readers. A standard letter that it sends to readers caught up in such junk mail states:
Sadly, this is a persistent problem which prompts more letters to Sorted than any other subject.
We have repeatedly exposed the bogus nature of many of these contests and always advise readers not to send money to claim prizes.
Many of the mailings use PO boxes and addresses abroad. especially in Holland, Australia and Canada.
When there is a UK address, it is usually a PO Box which forwards to another address abroad.
The Canadian government is investigating several companies after we alerted them to the problem.
Canada is a major source of such letters, but I hope that our Government will undertake a similar investigation. I have numerous details of companies from my binliner to pass to the relevant Minister.
The starting point for such an investigation has been raised with me in a letter from Michael Greenwood, a reporter on the "Sorted" investigation run by the Daily Mirror. He states:
The last article we wrote on junk mail was directed at Royal Mail. In my opinion they are one of the few organisations that can help the consumer fight the problem.
There are so many of these bogus mailings it is impossible to keep track of the companies concerned, let alone confront anyone who runs such firms.
But what is consistent is that many of the mailings come into this country in envelopes marked with Royal Mail prepaid "HQ" codes.

Not only does this give the mailings credence of such a respected national institution but it means the con men are getting a reduced postal rate.
One code, which we mentioned in the March 24th report, is a particular problem and we have repeatedly raised this with the Royal Mail.
That is the code HQ5810. It appears on a letter that I have here which is addressed to my constituent, and it is the most common code used on mail in my bag where Royal Mail is employed. Other HQ codes among my constituents' mail are 6050, 4896, 4144 and 2137.
The reason my constituent receives unsolicited junk mail from numerous companies is that those companies are likely to be interlinked, or perhaps two or three separate junk mail consortiums hold her details. Such organisations have a tendency to prey on pensioners and others who may seem vulnerable. The interlinking of such operations is shown in articles in the Daily Mirror dated 16 April 1999 and 11 June 1999. They show one man, in Australia, Terrance Morris, to be behind campaigns operating under a variety of names in Canada, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Germany and Switzerland.
It is said that we live in a global economy—in a global village. We are certainly seeing the globalisation of rip-offs and scams. Therefore, the Government will need to work with other nations to develop an effective strategy to stop such unhealthy developments. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to inform the Department of Trade and Industry and others that I am more than willing to bring them my black binliner full of letters and to discuss with them this serious problem.

Mr. John Randall: I start by echoing the concerns of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), which I am sure are shared by all our constituents. I am concerned about not only junk mail but junk faxes. I am also perturbed that, from time to time, I receive letters suggesting that I enter a prize draw, which often emanate from the Consumers Association and Which?, which I find rather strange. That is not a scam, but it is certainly a marketing ploy.
While we are on the subject of postal services, I want to raise a matter which is of great concern in particular to those of my constituents who live in Ickenham who, for many years, have regarded themselves as a separate community with well-defined boundaries. Their postal code of UB represents Uxbridge as the postal town. They are aggrieved that the Post Office does not include Ickenham in that address. This is not just a matter of pride in one's community, although that should be taken into account, and, from time to time, it has led to much confusion.
Many Members may have had the experience, for instance, of booking tickets by telephone and being asked for first their surname and then their postcode. When they have told the company concerned their postcode, they are told the rest of their address. For instance, people living in the Greenway in Ickenham will be told that it is the Greenway, Uxbridge. However, there is already a Greenway in Uxbridge and another in Cowley, and the postcodes of all three have UB prefixes.
I know of a sad case in which a golden wedding bouquet from a relation did not arrive at the right address because of the confusion that I have described. I raised


the matter with the Post Office, but it was not willing to undertake the simple task of adding just one line to the computer database. The situation is not confined to the people of Ickenham; a member of the Cowley community experienced exactly the same problem.
I agree with what many hon. Members have said about mobile telephone masts. I can think of three that are causing concern in my constituency, which, in geographical terms, is very small. It is proposed that one should be built in Long lane, Hillingdon, very close to St. Bernadette's school. Another is already on site in Honey hill, Uxbridge, and an application has been made for retrospective permission. It beams straight into the bedroom of the teenage daughter of one of my constituents. The third, on Uxbridge common, must have an effect on people in a residential care home for the elderly in Harefield road, Uxbridge.
Some of the side effects of the masts seem to be affecting electronic devices. A security officer to whom I spoke recently said that it was not uncommon for home security alarms, or even car locking devices, to be activated by the radio waves sent out by the masts. I am far from convinced that we know enough about the masts. If they are activating those alarms, what might they be doing to individuals? I am sure that we are all concerned about people's safety, and I hope that the Government will consider the matter.
Several Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), raised the question of roads. In Uxbridge and the surrounding area, what we are after is not more roads, but more road safety and less traffic. In the near vicinity, we are threatened by what are, in theory, worthy causes—the construction f two rail freight depots. It may be thought that is difficult to oppose in principle: we are all in favour of taking more freight off the roads and putting it on to rail. However, the construction of the depots would dramatically increase large traffic movements of heavy lorries in and around roads in my area.
One of the developments is proposed by Central Railway. It has not yet got round to an application, but the development is part of a scheme covering Liverpool and extending, eventually, to Lille. A terrible problem is being caused by the blight that is affecting people along the line. I think the Government should consider the problem of blight when developments have not even been put forward—and this has been going on for a long time.
I also have a request about roads. Many hon. Members may travel down the A40 tonight on their way to their constituencies. When they see the first bit of open road, they may want to put their foot on the accelerator. I can tell them that the residents of Uxbridge, Hillingdon and Ickenham will not be pleased about that, because traffic noise has been a constant problem to them for many years. Although some measures are now being taken, speed reduction would help. I was surprised to learn that reduction in speed levels could be brought about only for road safety, rather than environmental, reasons, and I hope that the Government will think about that.
I sometimes think that we hear a lot in this place about the real problems of inner cities and rural areas, but the poor old suburbs are forgotten. They are thought of as leafy, and indeed they contain leafy areas, but they

nevertheless experience problems, which, if they are left to their own devices for too long, can only become worse. Hillingdon, for example, has lost many of its public services. We have lost several firefighting appliances, and police numbers are down because staff are sucked into central London.
Most people move to the suburbs to improve the quality of their lives, but I increasingly hear that that quality of life has been eroded to the point at which people want to move further away. There is, of course, the problem of affordable housing, which involves not just public services but finding people homes near their work, so that local industry can be maintained.
Finally, let me mention a problem that is near to my heart. I declare my interest as a director—nowadays—of a retail store. In the past, I have worked behind the counters and on the vans of the store.
We hear a lot about air rage, road rage and violent attacks on public service workers. A few days ago, we heard of the murder of a retailer in west London. That was an extreme incident, but many shop workers are subjected daily to much abuse and threatened violence. Sometimes the abuse and threats come from shoplifters; I am not sure that shoplifting is deemed to be as serious an offence as it seems to people trying to apprehend those who try to steal their property. Increasingly, however, shop workers are subjected to both physical and verbal violence by customers.
Nowadays, we rightly give consumers a great deal of protection, but I think we should also bear in mind the rights of those who serve the public.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I think that it would be wrong for the House to adjourn without considering the continuing problems arising from the British Coal respiratory compensation scheme. At least 100,000 claims have been made, and I know that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, have taken up complaints. I shall refer to only three cases, but those cases exemplify the tragedy that still exists because of non-payment of compensation to miners affected by diseases following the years of work that they have put into the industry. I am grateful that my three constituents have given permission to refer to them. They are Enoch Rollo, Jack Betts—via his daughter, Frances Haywood—and Joseph Moore and his family.
The starting point is an impressive Government policy under which £2 billion has been put aside for compensation payments—a commitment that I hope has the support of the whole House. In March, however, in common with many other hon. Members, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, which set out the problems that continue to bedevil the scheme's ability to deliver compensation to miners who rightfully have a claim. My right hon. Friend also expressed her frustration and concerns at the delays:
The first stage of the medical testing has almost been completed. I am, however, frustrated that we have not yet got the volume we hoped for going through the Main Medical Assessment procedure… We have in place facilities to complete 2,500 MAPs a month by now, but we will make only around 50 this month.
That hoped-for completion rate has not materialised—and certainly not in time for Joe Moore, who died last week after 25 years of suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. His funeral is tomorrow.
Joe Moore joins 620 miners in Nottinghamshire who died before their compensation claims were dealt with, and they are among 40,000 or more miners nationally who died before the scheme delivered compensation. I am concerned at the failure to deliver a commitment made in the House to the households of miners suffering from the lifetime effects of working in the mining industry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister hoped to deliver 2,500 medical assessments a month, but the fast-track system has not materialised in Nottinghamshire. The 620 miners who died were in effect delayed to death. Since the introduction of the MAP process, only one miner in Nottinghamshire has been assessed.
The solicitors representing Joe Moore wrote to me earlier this year to express their frustration at the delays:
When we pass information to IRISC—
the claims managers for British Coal—
they send it to Healthcall, the organisation appointed by the DTI to run the Medical Assessment Process. Healthcall then pass it to an organisation called MPS who then obtain each miner's medical and employment records. We understand this is taking some considerable time in each case. In addition, the main cause of the delay is that the Medical Assessment Process is, to the best of our knowledge, not running as yet in this area. At the time of writing this letter the only people that have been tested are miners resident in Wales. Earlier this year, we were informed that the Medical Assessment Process would begin in this area in March 2000 but, as of yet, no one has been tested. We have continuously asked IRISC for an explanation, as the doctors have now been appointed and the test centres have been established, but no answer has been provided.
Although Joe Moore was close to death, the fast-track process was no track at all for him. It failed to materialise. We cannot allow that situation to continue. We should reflect on why it was so different when a Labour Government introduced a compensation scheme for pneumoconiosis—a scheme that was simpler in many ways, because the number of negotiations was fewer.
My right hon. Friend the Minister points out that another factor is the proliferation of agencies involved and the delays in the provision of medical records. If the Government have to introduce a defined time framework within which agencies are required to co-operate and supply the necessary information, the health or legal professionals must accept liability for their standard of work and the processing of legitimate claims.
None of that will be in time for the miners who have already died, but it will make a difference to their families. The debt that we owe to miners must be discharged to their families. Tomorrow, Joe Moore's family will say their last goodbyes to a man was brave, stubborn, honest and hard-working. He received a British Empire Medal for his services to the industry. It is saddening that he devoted his working life to an industry that repaid his commitment with delay and indifference.
That is not meant as a slur against Joe Moore or his family. He was fortunate to be able to draw on the support of his wife, Beryl, and his eight children—who were able to step in and provide personal support, although that should have been enhanced by the compensation payments that were due by right. Beryl and her eight children—Anthony, Teresa, Patrick, Jacqueline, Andrew, Catherine, Pamela and Yvonne—will be saying goodbye to a man whose life was honest, straightforward and principled. None of those characteristics can be associated with the mechanisms behind the delays that stood between

Joe Moore and the financial and practical support to which he had a right, to alleviate suffering in the final years of his life.
Our continuing debt to miners is a debt of honour. I hope that the House will take whatever steps it can to discharge that debt quickly and honourably for all the miners for whom Joe Moore and his family would demand justice and their rights.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: It is a privilege and pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who raises an issue of great importance to everyone in Nottinghamshire and no doubt to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members who have represented coalfield communities for many years. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office has also been foremost among those who have campaigned for miners on many issues, including compensation—the payment of which should be made as quickly as possible. I hope that we will be able to do that, and that his constituents and ours receive the compensation that is their due.
Before the Whitsun adjournment, I want to raise three particular issues—two briefly and one in a little more detail—that affect my constituents and that have been raised with me several times. The first was also raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It concerns an important point, which many hon. Members raise—the small pockets of deprivation outside inner cities and other city areas, and within suburbs or rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have long campaigned for areas within my constituency where there are small pockets of quite intense deprivation. Those areas often receive very little help through grant or additional funding, which they need to tackle poverty. My hon. Friend will know that I have campaigned for a long time for Netherfield, in my constituency, a very deprived ward—especially some parts of it—which has continually failed to get single regeneration budget money simply because it is the wrong side of the line and does not fit particular criteria.
In this day and age, we should be able to come up with statistical data that allow us to focus on small pockets of deprivation rather than allowing them to be overwhelmed by the general affluence that sometimes surrounds them. I hope that Netherfield—I am sure that hon. Members will have their own examples of such areas of deprivation—will be able to get the help that it needs to overcome its real problems of poverty.
The second issue is the iniquity of the education standard spending assessment system. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is one of the leading lights in the Fair Funding 40 campaign, is in the Chamber. There are real issues in Nottinghamshire and in all the schools in my constituency. Funding for those schools varies significantly from that for schools in exactly the same circumstances in other areas. Primary schools receive tens of thousands of pounds less and secondary schools hundreds of thousands of pounds less.
The justification for that is the needs index, which means that some areas are funded differently from others. We all accept that: where there are particular problems of


deprivation or particular needs to be met, it is fair enough. No one would begrudge that additional funding going to meet that additional need, but when the Fair Funding 40 group met officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we were told that the main reason for the difference in the education SSAs was that staff pay varied. That beggars belief because, as we know, the salaries of teachers are set on a national pay scale and, apart from some London weighting, there is no real difference between the salaries of teachers and education workers in one part of the country and in another.
I know that a review is going on, and I hope that between us all, we will be able to rejig the way in which the education SSA works, to come up with a fairer funding mechanism that will allow schools in my constituency of Gedling, all schools in Nottinghamshire, and schools in the other authorities that are adversely affected, to receive some of the additional money that they need—a fairer slice of the education cake.
The Fair Funding 40 group has never argued that we should take funds from the authorities that already receive money. We do not want to set one authority against another, but we seek a fairer system. Perhaps that requires funding for us all to be lifted to a median level. Perhaps the size of the cake should be increased, so that we all share more.
Schools, parents and governors in my constituency are putting pressure on me to put pressure on the Government to change the system as soon as they can, and to come up with something that is fairer—something that will allow us to employ teachers, teaching assistants and cleaners, and to have all the other things that go to make up a school. We should have the same level and sufficiency of resources that are available to other authorities.
The third issue is raised by constituents old, middle aged and young. I say that to emphasise a point, because people often regard the topic as something that older people raise. However, when I have done sixth-form surgeries or talked to younger people, they are just as concerned about it as middle aged or older people. It is a concern that they see all around them—a perceived decline in respect in our communities, a lack of respect for others and, in the most general sense, for authority.
Whenever we try to address that issue and say that there is a problem with respect for authority, there is an immediate reaction: it is said that our suggestion is linked with fascism and a return to some jackboot type of authority. I do not mean that, and nor does anyone else in my constituency. What we are talking about is the perception in communities that there has been a decline in respect for some of the traditional things and some of those who traditionally exercise authority, which makes it difficult in many respects for our communities and our society to function.
A couple of examples show the problems. We need somehow to encourage greater respect for the police when they are called on to deal with difficult situations. No doubt we have all had examples quoted to us in which, when a particular problem occurs in a community, the police turn up and people are appalled by the reaction of the young people, or of others, to the police. That is of

grave concern to us all, because if the police are not treated with the respect that they deserve, we have a problem.
Our teachers also struggle to receive the respect that they need to do their work. I remember that, often, when a teacher gave a detention or some sort of punishment for something that had happened in the school, what caused a lot of stress was that immediately, the authority of the teacher to do that—to impose a reasonable level of discipline within the school—was challenged.
I am not one of those who say that the police or teachers should never be accountable, but if every time a policeman, policewoman, or teacher takes any sort of action, they feel that their authority is challenged, it makes it difficult for them to do their job. I believe—I have argued this in a number of debates and also said it in private conversations—that if any Government, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, want to raise standards in city schools, and if they want to ensure that people all have the opportunities that they deserve, they must create the right sort of learning environment in some of the most difficult schools. However, we cannot create such an environment simply by turfing out those who are causing the problem. They should be included in an environment in which teachers can teach.
We must respect teachers and police, and re-establish legitimate authority in society. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also mentioned some of the problems experienced by shopkeepers. Respect for people working in that type of environment is important. We also have to respect health professionals. Many doctors, nurses and other health workers could tell us appalling stories of the difficulties that they sometimes have to face in simply trying to perform their professional duties. At times, late at night in accident and emergency wards, they are threatened. Some patients demand a prescription for pills that their doctors do not think that they should have.
Respect for police, teachers, health professionals and property is a fundamental issue for our society, and I do not think that it is a party political issue. We should discuss together how we can re-establish legitimate authority and respect in our society. Without such respect, we shall always be struggling to raise standards in schools, to improve the health service and to deal with the problems of crime and disorder in our communities.
Our shared response to the issue should be to ask how we can generate that respect, tolerance and self-respect in our society, without resorting to the type of authoritarian response that is sometimes seen. If we can manage to address the issue, it would be a great boon for many people in our communities—the people whom we represent.

Sir George Young: We have had a debate in the best tradition of the House, with a wide range of themes. If there was one theme that ran through quite a few of the speeches, it was the theme of the environment. However, I think that what a wider public would notice, if they had followed the debate, was, first, the sheer range of different problems with which hon. Members have to get abreast; secondly, the detail that hon. Members go into to assist their constituents—the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was a good example of that; and, thirdly, the amount of


technical knowledge that we have to acquire if we are to do battle on equal terms with the Government. I think that those qualities came through the whole of our debate today.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke movingly about the consequences of alcoholism in relation to employment, marital breakdown, child abuse, unwanted pregnancies and accidents, and he pressed the Government for a strategy. I think that we would all endorse that.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, as did some other hon. Members, mobile telephone masts. Let me mention in passing the fact that, last month, the Conservative party came up with a policy changing the terms of trade towards the planning authority and the residents, and away from the providers of telephone masts. It sounds as if that policy would have a lot of support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) made the case for fines for straying off flight paths—fines for pilots who go off-message. He made the point that the regulations already exist. Of course, the principle of fining airlines for noisy aircraft has already been conceded, and the fines suggested by my hon. Friend would be a logical extension.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Chester's Croft, where his constituents do not get compensation because they live in mobile homes, as opposed to permanent homes. Again, it seems that progress is being made, but rather slowly—the Minister may have some good news on that. My hon. Friend also mentioned a road. It sounded familiar; in the previous Government, it may have been one of the roads that was in my programme.

Mr. Day: It was.

Sir George Young: If it has dropped out, well, the responsibility lies elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke rather movingly about our railway heritage. I pay tribute to the work of Worth Valley. I think that that was the setting for "The Railway Children", which is how most of us have come across it. The hon. Member reminded us about the age of steam. She also mentioned that she was looking for temporary storage space for some rolling stock. It just occurred to me that the millennium dome might possibly be able to help.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my neighbour, spoke about modernisation, which is a very topical issue. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I can say that it is an issue with which we are grappling at the moment. I shall make one or two points in passing. First, whatever hon. Members think about the conditions in this Parliament, they are infinitely better than conditions in previous Parliaments.
Secondly—looking round the Chamber—I do not think that anyone has been kept out of their bed later and more often than me, and I have been kept out of my bed by Labour Members and Liberal Democrat Members. It is somewhat paradoxical that it is Members from those parties who are now urging me and my colleagues to be more restrained.
Thirdly, it is not only a matter for the Opposition: the Government have a role to play, in the size of the legislative programme, the complexity of the legislative programme and the quality of the drafting.
Finally, one has to be careful, under cover of making this place more civilised and more user-friendly, not to shift the terms of trade even further in favour of the Government and against Parliament. If anything, the terms of trade need to be shifted back.
On electronic voting, I declare that I am not a supporter. In the most recent survey, the most popular method of voting was the one that we have now. I should be surprised if opinions had changed enormously since then.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) spoke movingly of Mr. Whittaker being denied a General Service Medal because he was not in an active service area. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that, even when this country is not directly involved, our soldiers and armed forces are at risk. He listed the number of fatalities in conflicts in which we were not a direct party, but in which, sadly, members of the armed services were killed. He reminded us of the debt that we all owe to those who are in the services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about asylum seekers and made a very reasoned case for looking rather carefully at the 10 per cent. of asylum seekers who come from countries that are actually free of persecution, because they are members of the Council of Europe. The pressure on his local authority and on the Home Office would be less if that 10 per cent. were not part of the queue.
My hon. Friend also referred to a key appeal that is about to take place in the House of Lords. I am sure that the Government will be watching that carefully, because, if the case goes in favour of the Roma, there are very wide implications indeed. My hon. Friend then went from the macro to the micro by explaining the consequences in his constituency of the increased number of asylum seekers who have arrived and the impact on residents and the wider economy.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was one of a number of Members to mention problems involving telephone masts, particularly when they are sited close to schools. Many schools have welcomed the income that they derive from having those masts, although they may be reconsidering that. The hon. Gentleman made a sound case for more research and for caution in the mean time. He expressed concern about the future of Ford and the viability of a stand-alone engine plant. I hope that his fears are unfounded.
The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that opinions about modernising can change. The plea from the hon. Member for Winchester was sandwiched between speeches from the wife and the son of one of the Members of Parliament who kept me out of my bed more often than almost any other—Bob Cryer. The hon. Member for Hornchurch implied that the Conservative party had conspired to close huge sections of British industry to reduce the number of trade unions and weaken our political opponents. That is a rather simplistic approach to the changes in industry in this country. It was containerisation that led to the closure of the docks. The present Government face the same challenge as the previous one in trying to respond to changes in patterns of industry and to provide new jobs when jobs have been lost.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made the most modest request of the debate, asking for a left filter at a traffic light.

Mr. Stunell: A right filter.

Sir George Young: I am sorry. If it is a right filter, I am certainly able to support the hon. Gentleman. He also reminded the House of our duties as Members of Parliament. We should not lose sight of that when we talk about the related issues of our conditions and working hours. He pointed out that it was up to the House to reclaim from the Executive some of the powers that we have lost. I certainly endorse that. Government Back Benchers are the only ones who can do that. The Opposition cannot reclaim powers from the Government on their own. Government Back Benchers have a heavy responsibility if we want to get the terms of trade back.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said about buses. They are the dark horse in the public transport debate. They can do most of what light railways can do, but at a fraction of the cost. I agree entirely with what she said about a constructive partnership between local authorities and bus companies to provide a better service. In my experience, information about buses is often missing. People would like to go by bus, but they do not always have sufficient information about where buses run and at what times.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Lady said about the working families tax credit. There have been problems in my constituency with the transition from social security payments to payment by employers. One or two people in my constituency have been without funds for some time. I hope that those transitional problems will be resolved.
I hope that we can have a full debate on the important White Paper on waste that was published today. Like the hon. Lady, I have been impressed by the sheer volume of correspondence about the debt campaign. The postcards keep rolling in month after month. That has an impact on Members of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about his local wildlife trust, its broad base of support in his constituency and the pioneering work of Miss Elliot. He focused on the crucial interface between agriculture and conservation. Farmers are often the best conservers, as long as they have the income with which to do it. The current debate centres on what to do about conservation when farm incomes fall. He said that there was a case for the Government to step in on conservation grounds to ensure that farmers were able to look after the heritage.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who would normally wind up this debate, but is attending an important family occasion. We were sorry to hear about the redundancies at ALSTOM. I hope that it can win fresh contracts elsewhere. The weak euro means that we must do all that we can to ensure that we are competitive in other areas by remaining deregulated, having low taxes and attracting inward investment. I was interested to hear about the single regeneration budget bid. That innovation of the previous Government was not wholeheartedly welcomed at the time by the Labour party, but I gather that it has now been embraced.
I am not sure whether the Minister took the precaution of having something to eat before we started business questions. When the hon. Member for Stafford started talking about the national culinary centre, I realised that that was the closest to nutrition that I was going to get for some time. We hope that his constituency is successful in establishing that important new institution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) reminded us of the Conservative party's success in the recent local elections and the transformation that is now taking place in Southend as a result. He reminded us of the work of the RNLI, which gets no help from the Government, not because the Government refuse to give help, but because the RNLI has not asked for help and does not want any. He reminded us that prevention is better than rescue. My hon. Friend declared himself to be an enemy of mobile phones, particularly on trains, and spoke about phone masts, as did other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has obviously done an enormous amount of research on junk mail. My experience is that writing to the mail preference service solves most of the problems, although there are still problems from Nigerian citizens who write to Members of Parliament asking for details of our bank accounts so that they can expatriate some funds that they have somehow accrued and in return pass on a small percentage to us. It is, of course, a scam. All that they want is details of our bank accounts so that they can access them. I hope that there can be a response to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised. He has done a service just by publicising it, because that will alert more people to the risks of subscribing. Junk faxes have virtually stopped since the law was changed. At the beginning of this Parliament, one found in one's office a stream of faxes inviting one to buy a holiday or fax paper or to recruit staff. That has virtually stopped, but junk e-mail is becoming slightly more of an issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to the problem of mobile phone masts and to rail freight depots. We all want more goods to be transported on the railways, but there is a problem with depots and of an increase in rail traffic at night. We need to think that through. My hon. Friend mentioned also the suburbs; the suburbs are, after all, where most people live, and one should not ignore their needs by focusing too much on inner cities and rural areas.
There was a moving speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) about compensation for miners from the coal industry and I hope that the bureaucratic process can be speeded up. The Minister is probably closer to that problem than anyone else, and will have sympathy with it.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) mentioned pockets of deprivation. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment responding to debates, there was a "Yes, Minister" reply which said that a well-resourced authority ought to be able to cope with pockets of deprivation, and that resources were focused on those areas with lots of pockets of deprivation. No doubt that response is still on the wordprocessor at the DETR and will be wheeled out. The hon. Gentleman's comments on respect for authority struck a chord with all of us.
This may be the last Whitsun Adjournment debate of this Parliament. As we go away, politics is beginning to get more exciting. I hope that the Minister will not be distressed if I say that, recently, we have seen some fumbled responses from the Government to some of the initiatives from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—they have been rather like a rabbit in the headlights.
We go away without having time to debate a number of early-day motions. Eleven Labour Members have signed an early-day motion on Britain's competitiveness, expressing concern at the level of sterling. Fifteen have signed an early-day motion critical of the Home Secretary's decision to admit Mike Tyson. Ninety Labour Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion on National Air Traffic Services, urging the Government to reconsider. More than 50 Labour Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion on the millennium dome.
I see before me a dispirited and demoralised party that is about to go on a recess that it desperately needs, confronted by a reinvigorated and confident Opposition, greatly encouraged by our success in the local elections. We, too, will return from our recess even more invigorated.
On behalf of the Opposition, I say to the occupants of the Chair, the servants of the House and all hon. Members that I hope that they have a well-earned rest.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This has been a useful and, as always, interesting debate. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke about the theme that came to him from the debate, which was the environment. There were strong environmental themes, but what struck me throughout the debate was the praise given from both sides of the House to voluntary and community organisations.
Governments are not good enough at saying thank you to people, and there are thousands and thousands of voluntary organisations and community groups across this country that raise the standard of our lives. We rarely have the opportunity to say thank you. This evening, I want to thank all of them for their efforts to increase the quality of civic society.
I was struck by the moving and inspiring speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about the Essex wildlife trust. I have not been to the site, but I will go and have a look. He was right to say that we must move away from our present means of support—support for production—to a system that allows for greater grants and input for conservation, lifting the landscape and enhancing the environment. There is a good moral there in Essex that is worth exploring.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that I have done my bit for the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. It is an excellent railway that continues to develop and do well. As my hon. Friend said, it is run and managed by the stakeholders to whom it belongs. I am pleased that she is one of them, and I am delighted that the national lottery has been able to help, in a small way, with a heritage lottery grant of almost £600,000. There are hundreds of such railways around the country, and the people who run them also deserve our thanks.
We also need to say thanks to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I too should like to put on record my appreciation for John Foster. The RNLI is not supported by the Government, because its members choose to be independent. They do an important and marvellous job, as do those who raise funds for the organisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke about other work done by community groups. He described the campaigns by the Pinner Green residents association and the Montesole Court residents association in connection with mobile phone masts—a matter to which I shall return later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made a different point about community action. He said that, some decades ago, people used to organise around their places of work. That is where the Labour movement and the trade union tradition came from, and it is where the notion of solidarity was born. Perhaps I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention one or two of the papers that have crossed my desk recently, which have argued that the new place for solidarity is in the voluntary sector and in community groups. If we were organising now, that is the sector in which we would start.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke about a related point—the need to devolve decision making and to empower people. He said that local people should be allowed to find local solutions to local problems. I regard that not as a difficulty, but as something that we ought to celebrate and support. The growth of community groups will help to bring back respect for authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) expressed strong concern about that, and his sentiments were of a piece with what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said about the service given by shopkeepers. The hon. Gentleman said that the right to be served by a shopkeeper entailed a responsibility on the part of the customer.
I think that Members of Parliament are very good at arguing for rights—perhaps too good at it—and that we do not argue enough for responsibilities. In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a good and well-organised speech. He spoke of his constituent, Mr. Whittaker, who served in the Suez canal zone, and he made a very powerful case on behalf of all canal zone veterans—including those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who were there only for five days. I shall certainly press the matter, and draw it to the attention of colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.
Several hon. Members spoke about transport and road issues, which formed one of the themes of the debate. The hon. Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Hazel Grove made it clear that they wanted a road, not a study. From previous encounters, I know the strength of the Hazel Grove action group in that regard. I confess that I may be part of the problem: I am not an infrequent visitor to Manchester airport and can confirm that it is an extremely difficult place to get to. If we are to achieve an integrated transport structure, we must establish an appropriate structure for access to the airport. I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentlemen's comments on that subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) talked about the importance of bus services. Buses are work horses, and they are dark horses too. They


can deliver the goods, but only if the transport service that they offer is of high quality. If we are to be proud to use buses, they must be clean and tidy, and their drivers and conductors—where they have them—should be polite and ready to supply passengers with information. One of the things that has fascinated me recently is the growth of computer-aided bus stops. We can stand at the bus stop and see the bus coming towards us on a graph. If we can bring bus services into the modern age, more people will switch to using them. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned very hard for this in Swindon, and all power to her elbow.
The hon. Member for Cheadle spoke about the problems of noise at Manchester airport. I am making inquiries about this. He is right to say that there is some kind of consultation exercise taking place. I confess that I cannot remember the details, but I will write to him about it.
A number of colleagues talked about job losses in their area. As always, it is extremely sad. However, what struck me from their comments was that out of decline is coming growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the problems at ALSTOM, a world leader, but also the desire to move towards the cutting edge of technology, to get into the business of renewables and to ensure that ALSTOM and people who work in Staffordshire are at the forefront of the new technology.
That certainly seems to be the case with the great British kitchen. My hon. Friend asked what help could be given. Advantage West Midlands will be looking at the issue. I have in my possession a letter from the Prime Minister to Prue Leith. Armed with that supportive letter, I think that the project bodes well for the future. I commend my hon. Friend on his efforts in this regard. I know that within the last day or so he went to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to pursue the issue on behalf of his community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was, as always, pressing the case for Netherfield. There is a case for doing better in areas of small-scale deprivation. Across Government, a whole range of initiatives to do with regeneration and reclamation are being brought together. They were sold initially as pilot schemes and experiments. We have not been as good as we might have been about learning the lessons from those experiments and making them a mainstream part of Government business.
The modernisation of the House of Commons was discussed at some length. What struck me, as always, was the amazing range of views that we heard. What also struck me is that politics is a circle. A party may be in government today and in opposition in, perhaps, 20 years' time—it might take about four elections. A sensible Government would always balance the needs of the Opposition.
There was no consensus about electronic voting or about the hours. Key members of the Modernisation Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon, and I have to say that it would be helpful to have some certainty about our hours. We can live with bad news, but we cannot live with the lack of certainty and the ability to make plans. If such a decision emerges from the Modernisation Committee, that would be a major improvement.
For my part, I would like us to experiment with electronic voting. The down side to that is that I frequently use the opportunity to lobby Ministers at the vote. As I said recently, in the Lobby Ministers may try to run but there is nowhere for them to hide. It is important to use our opportunities.
Several colleagues raised slightly smaller but more important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West told us that he had taken part in an Industry and Parliament Trust placement with a voluntary organisation. That is a good initiative, which should be praised. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has also been involved with Age Concern under the same scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West asked about the Government's alcohol strategy. We shall publish a consultation paper in the summer. I hope that that important document will help us to make progress on some of the issues that he raised.
The hon. Member for Cheadle referred to mobile homes—a subject that is close to my heart, too. They are an eccentricity in planning terms. Their tenants are in a difficult situation and have no real powers in law. He made a point, which had not occurred to me before, about their not being able to apply for compensation for traffic noise and the building of a new road. He will be pleased to learn that the mobile homes working party—which includes colleagues from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, mobile home owners and the parks' owners—has recently finished its work. Its report contains a range of recommendations. If we can make progress with them, we can make life much better for the occupants of mobile homes.
I should like to make life better for those who live in Bournemouth. It is especially sad that an area that people have cared about has suddenly and dramatically gone downhill and that an area of civic pride has become one of seediness and squalor. The Government are concerned about asylum. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 began to bite on 4 April, and I hope that it will make a difference. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talked about membership of the Council of Europe and asked whether we could have a different regime. Those matters are governed by the 1951 United Nations charter on refugees and the change that he recommends would not be possible at present, but I know that the issue has been on the agenda of my colleagues in the Home Office. We shall certainly take his point very seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said that the working families tax credit does not apply to nannies. That issue is on Ministers' desks at the moment. I make no commitment that it will be resolved, but I noticed that, as she spoke, there was a lot of nodding around the Chamber so it is clearly a problem.
I, too, am keen to discuss waste management strategy, which is a big and pressing issue. Landfill sites are ticking time bombs. We must do better; we cannot go on filling holes in the ground with waste as we do now. We all have a responsibility as householders and consumers to recycle, to make compost in our gardens and to choose goods that are not over-packaged. If we behave better, we will make the difference for our children and their children.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned some hard cases, which seemed to involve bureaucracy and a lack of appropriate response from


Government services. I will not comment on them now, but he can be sure that I will take them up in the relevant quarters.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire wanted me to take him and his black plastic bag to Victoria street to talk to Ministers about junk mail. I shall try to deliver that bag for him. I like the notion of his walking down Victoria street with a black plastic bag over his shoulder. There appears to be a problem, and we should try to make progress with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Royal Mail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised matters close to my heart—a better funding deal for schools. My. hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has also been involved in that campaign. I remind them that a consultation paper on the problem is to be issued this summer and I remind all hon. Members that schools throughout the country will receive cheques in the next few days, which will vary from £4,000 for the smallest primary school to £60,000 for the largest secondary school, so that they can do better. Labour colleagues are particularly proud of that initiative.
After I leave this place, my first appointment in the morning will be with the organisation that deals with compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has joined us. We have campaigned hard for two decades to get such compensation. When we started, we were told that there was no chance, but we all worked together. We campaigned together and we won in the High Court—the biggest civil compensation case in history. We will pay out on 100,000 claims to former miners. We have £2 billion to put in people's pockets. What peeves us all is that we are not doing the job more quickly—£70 million has already been paid out, but much more remains to be done. Tomorrow, I will see the chief executive of IRISC, which is the body that is running that. I will have a full and frank discussion with him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would put it. I will poke the organisation in the eye a little on the matter because I want us to achieve the target that we set ourselves—to pay out to 2,500 people a month. These miners have given their health—in some cases, their lives—to keep us warm and we must do better.
I am conscious that I have been asked to pass on many messages and to ensure that ministerial colleagues are aware of a range of issues. I will do so. I will write to those colleagues who have raised matters that I have not answered.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that we were going away for a few days of rest. What struck me was not that colleagues needed a rest, but that they would be going back to their constituencies full of vigour to deal with various problems and initiatives—the things that need to be done. I am conscious of a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. He was putting pressure on me to put pressure on Ministers to ensure that we get change. This debate shows that a lot has been achieved, but much more remains to be done.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Learning Difficulties

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise Government funding for persons with learning difficulties in Hertfordshire , which is a subject of great interest to my constituents and more widely in Hertfordshire.
Before I deal with that matter, I must make two things clear. First, Hertfordshire has a good tradition of meeting the needs of people with learning difficulties through the work of voluntary groups. It is in large part due to the work of such groups that people with learning disabilities make a positive contribution to the community in Hertfordshire and are valued members of it. I pay tribute to all those who work in voluntary groups in my constituency and throughout the county.
I wish to explore whether Hertfordshire county council receives an appropriate level of support through the arrangements for providing support for local government from central Government. The Minister and her Department have received communications from Hertfordshire county council on this matter. The council has carried out a great deal of work; it recently commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers on demand for learning disability services in Hertfordshire. The report included some technical detail about the standard spending assessment.
Hertfordshire county council contends that the SSA does not adequately reflect demand for services in the county and that, as a result, the council spends more than its SSA for personal social services. The starting point for that situation is that, compared with other local authorities, there is a high incidence of people with learning disabilities in Hertfordshire. National research shows an indicative population for people with learning difficulties—irrespective of whether they receive local authority support—of about 3.75 to 4.04 per thousand of the general population. However, in Hertfordshire, that proportion is exceeded; the ratio is 6.61 per thousand.
According to Department of Health records, the number of local authority supported residents with learning disabilities in Hertfordshire is above average; there are more than seven such residents per 10,000 of the population. Those figures do not take account of the significant number of people from long-stay institutions who have been placed in local authority residential care under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I should make it clear that such people are funded by the health authority and thus do not enter the general argument, although they may provide part of the explanation as to why Hertfordshire has a high incidence of people with learning disabilities.
The number of people in Hertfordshire who have moved to local authority residential care from long-stay institutions is high because of the preponderance of such institutions in the county—many of them in and around my constituency. That is a historical feature of the region. Although those people are funded by the health authority, it is possible that, as their disabilities become more complex and severe with age, they will make additional calls on the Hertfordshire personal social services budget.


At present, they are funded under the 1990 Act. In any event, quite apart from those people, demand for residential placements for people with learning disabilities is set to grow at a relatively high rate—as the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers established.
That is the picture of need in Hertfordshire. How well does Government funding help Hertfordshire county council to address it? Of course, revenue support grant is distributed to local authorities through the SSAs. In this case, it is divided into seven service sectors, of which the relevant one is that for personal social services. That SSA has four categories—I do not want to go into them too deeply, but I must touch on some of the technical detail in order to make my argument.
The first three categories comprise children's services and elderly residential and elderly domiciliary services. The fourth—the important one for my argument—is described as "other services" by the Government; it covers the provision of services for people aged between 18 and 61, including people with learning disabilities.
In the first three categories, the SSA follows the client group for which the service is provided. Research work has been carried out to identify the relationship between need and expenditure in those cases. However, in contrast, the SSA for the fourth category, which includes people with learning disabilities, does not follow the client group; it follows certain broad socio-economic indicators—reflecting economic and health factors and accommodation provision.
I do not want to get too technical about the issue, but the underlying point is that funding from central Government for people with learning disabilities is not distributed on the basis of potential client group numbers and the need for the local authority to incur expenditure on that client group. To put it more broadly, because of the formula controlling distribution, money does not follow the needs that it is supposed to address.
I do not want to go into any more detail, but I invite the Minister to consider the research that has been prepared by Hertfordshire county council in support of its case. The report makes the argument on strong, robust and technical grounds that the SSA formula does not reflect the relative need that local authorities may have for client groups, including people with learning disabilities. It also points out that the issue will become increasingly important as demand for residential places grows. It suggests technical ways in which the SSA can be reformed to reflect need.
My contention is that Hertfordshire loses out on funding that should go to people with real and important needs—those with learning disabilities in my constituency and the rest of Hertfordshire. As matters stand, according to the leader of Hertfordshire county council, Mr. Robert Ellis, it may be that Hertfordshire loses out by as much as £9 million to £10 million each year.
Against that background, I hope that I have taken a realistic attitude. I know that it is a technical and complicated matter that presents difficulties for the Government, who have to take account of a wide range of issues. Hertfordshire county council is conducting further research, but I hope that the Minister will suggest that she is at least able to consider the possibility of further research by her Department and that she will consider

favourably any request by the council for help with its research and, particularly, for help with the collection of data to support its contentions.
I hope that the Minister will have an open mind towards the possibility of further studies. I understand that that does not necessarily entail any Government guarantees about the conclusions on the SSA, but they should at least consider the research. Hertfordshire county council has done some good work and it has made a strong case that is supported by robust and well argued research.
I hope that the Government are willing to listen to the council, which speaks on behalf of an important section of the community that is much valued in my constituency. People want to help, but they wonder whether those in that group are receiving the help that they should receive from central Government through funding for the important services that have to be provided for them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and on giving us an opportunity to consider the financing of local government in Hertfordshire and to set the record straight on some of the points that he made.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the financing of local government for this year is settled, but I accept that he has spoken largely about the future. In February, the House approved the distribution of revenue supports grants, and local authorities, including Hertfordshire, have decided their budgets and set their council taxes. In that sense, the settlement is fixed for this year.
I remind the House that, this year, the settlement has increased support for local government by much more than the rate of inflation. It is important to bear that context in mind. We have provided 5.8 per cent. more in grant for local authorities this year on top of a 5.5 per cent. increase the year before. In three years, we have increased the grant to local authorities by £6 billion, a real-terms increase of 7.8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that figure contrasts sharply with the previous Government's cut of 4.3 per cent. in real terms in their last three years in office. The general context is that local authorities, including Hertfordshire, have received substantial increases in grant above the inflation rate.
Hertfordshire has shared in those increases. Indeed, some authorities would argue that it has had a disproportionate share of them. It has received increases greater than those of the average shire county, its total standard spending assessment has increased by more than £40 million and its grants have increased by 5.4 per cent or £27 million. Hertfordshire social services SSA has increased more in the first three years of this Government than it did in the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. Again, in comparison with the previous period, social services have received substantial increases in grant above the inflation rate.
The hon. Gentleman said that Hertfordshire does not get fair treatment from the grant system, but that is hard to square with the figures. Of the other 33 shire counties, only two get a bigger SSA than Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has increased its budget by a bigger percentage than the average shire county, but has


increased its council tax by a smaller percentage than the average shire county. Only two of the other 33 shire counties charge a lower council tax.
On the face of it, those facts do not suggest that Hertfordshire is badly treated by the present grants system. That is highlighted by some groups of authorities that make representations, such as the so-called E40 group of authorities, which are primarily rural shire counties and unitary district authorities. They feel that they do not receive a fair share of education funding and frequently cite Hertfordshire as an example of an authority which, in their view, receives an over-generous SSA.
That is the context for the funding of Hertfordshire social services and its impact on funding for learning disability services, which was the main point of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Government made social services funding a priority in the 1998 comprehensive spending review and, for the first time, we guaranteed that provision nationally would increase in the three years between 1999 to 2002. As a result, local councils could plan ahead with greater confidence across the range of social services. In the period covered by the spending review, the provision for social services is for an additional £2.8 billion which, on average is more than 3 per cent above inflation for each of the three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that that demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to social services, including services to people with learning disabilities.
In the second year of the period covered by the comprehensive spending review, the provision for local social services has increased by £492 million, which represents an increase above inflation of 5.6 per cent in cash terms and of 3.1 per cent in real terms. That is a measure of the substantial additional resources that we have given to all local authorities, including Hertfordshire, for personal social services standard spending assessments. That is the background to the matter, covering the general position on grants and the way in which that specifically affects social services SSAs and grants.
Audit Commission performance indicators confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman said, Hertfordshire has a higher than average number of people with learning difficulties. I understand that that is largely because the area once had three long-stay hospitals. Consequently, when responsibility for the services provided by those hospitals was transferred to local authorities, many of the hospital residents remained in Hertfordshire, regardless of where they had originally come from.
While the Audit Commission shows that Hertfordshire's spending on services for those with learning difficulties is above average, its performance indicators show that its circumstances are by no means exceptional. In terms of the proportion of its population who are supported on account of their learning difficulties, Hertfordshire just makes the top quarter of shire county authorities, and nationally, barely makes the top 50. Hertfordshire is in the wide top band, but it is by no means exceptional.
The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in my Department that Ministers are told, rightly, that all authorities have spending pressures. It is for each authority to decide how best to meet the needs of all its residents, given the available resources.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the county asked consultants to come up with a different formula for allocating standard spending assessments. The consultants initially tried to base a formula on an analysis, but were thwarted by the lack of reliable data—the sort of data that the hon. Gentleman wants us to use—so they devised what they described as a "judgment-based" formula.
On their first attempt, the consultants produced an analysis which showed that Hertfordshire should have another £60 million. Realising that that would probably be treated with some scepticism, they moved to the judgment-based formula. On the basis of that formula, they calculated that Hertfordshire should receive another £9.7 million.
However, the formula would also shift about £100 million of SSA away from inner London and the metropolitan areas, which have their own pressures on their budgets. Would the losers be fairly treated if we relied on a judgment by those advising Hertfordshire, which would be a big gainer? Even the consultants say that
this formula is not adequate for the purposes of Central Government departments.
Although I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the pressures in Hertfordshire, and I have acknowledged that there is an above-average number of people with learning difficulties in that county, his overall argument is weak. I could cite to him the case made by a range of local authorities, metropolitan authorities and rural authorities, each of which would identify a different pressure, but none the less a pressure, on its budget.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she address the point that applies to all authorities: if money is provided from central Government for people with learning disabilities, should that not reflect the number of people with learning difficulties in the authorities concerned?

Ms Hughes: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know from his time as a junior Minister in the Department that it is a long-standing feature of the standard spending assessment formula—which we are committed to changing. and which he knows is under review—that all the indicators used in the formula should be outside the direct policy influence of the local authority. In other words, it should not be possible, by using a particular indicator, for the decisions that a local authority takes—in this instance, perhaps, to accept more people with learning difficulties—to be used as a mechanism for increasing its grant.
That is why, in relation to people with learning difficulties as well as a range of other services provided by local authorities, the indicators used are indirect indicators in terms of the general characteristics of the population. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well versed in this. I understand the argument that Hertfordshire has advanced, but it is not an argument that we have been prepared to accept, because that would unravel a long-standing feature of SSAs and leave the SSA formula open to influence by the policy decisions of local authorities.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. I am not interested, as she seems to


think, in comparisons with previous Governments, as I do not believe that that is helpful. I understand her point about other authorities, and I hope that I anticipated that in my remarks. I appreciate the difficulties, but will she listen to Hertfordshire county council and look at the research? Will she at least do that?

Ms Hughes: We have considered PricewaterhouseCoopers' research, but, for the reasons that I have just outlined, we cannot accept the point made by Hertfordshire that, on the basis of that research, the SSA formula should include a direct indicator of the number of people with learning difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed some of the points that I have made. It is interesting that he is not particularly interested in comparing Governments, but my reference to the previous Government was valid. I was careful to point out the substantial increases since 1997 that all local authorities have received generally and for personal social services. That is a valid point in terms of evaluating whether Hertfordshire should have enough money to allocate to services for people with learning difficulties in their area.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady introduces a partisan element, which is not necessary and will not be well received in Hertfordshire. I hope that she will at least consider the further research that has been done by Hertfordshire county council and reflect on the fact that, further to her point about local authorities attracting people to their areas, people with learning difficulties are already in Hertfordshire—the hon. Lady knows the historical background—and are not getting the money that they need for their services. I understand the difficulties, but will the hon. Lady at least consider the research in an open-minded way, put aside partisan considerations and help Hertfordshire?

Ms Hughes: I do not accept that I am being any more partisan than the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge the substantially improved finances for all local authorities that I have outlined. I dare say that he has not pointed that out to his constituents in Hertfordshire either, and he should, because not only does that result in an improvement generally, but it means that Hertfordshire has done particularly well. I have explained Hertfordshire's financial position relative to other shire counties, but the hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge that. He has not said that he has pressed Hertfordshire on why it is not allocating sufficient resources for people with learning difficulties.
I do not want to finish without making some general points about the grant distribution system and the priorities for people with learning difficulties in particular. I accept that the grant system attracts criticism. It is a long-standing and opaque system. It has operated for many years and it makes it difficult for authorities to see how their overall grant has been calculated and to plan ahead to improve their services. That is why, with the consent of local authorities, we have started to review that system.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the context of that review and with the agreement of local authorities, for the three years that that review will take the SSA formula will be frozen, apart from data changes. The certainty of increased grants, albeit on an SSA formula, gives local authorities time in which to plan, while allowing us to review the situation.
We are not specifically considering the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman within that review, but if Hertfordshire wants to send any research in addition to that done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, my Department will be happy to receive it and consider it in that context. If that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, I am happy to give it.
Support for people with learning difficulties is an important priority for the Government, and for my Department and the Department of Health in particular. A significant group of people, including users and carers, as well as professionals, and including a member of a voluntary organisation from the hon. Gentleman's area, has been drawn together to work with us to develop a strategy for improving those services. Given the change of thinking around such services and the belief that such services should be based in the community, the improvement of services generally is one of our priorities and we will continue to strive for that.
I repeat that we have given much more support to local authorities, and also to people with learning difficulties. Funding to provide such people with services has increased substantially in the past three years. We have recognised the limits of the system of grant distribution that we inherited, and we are conducting a review. As I have said, I shall be happy to receive any information that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to that review; but I cannot accept his basic contention that Hertfordshire has fared relatively less well than other authorities. Indeed, as I think that I have made clear, relatively it has fared very well. I hope that it will consider the funds that it has received and seek to improve services for people with learning difficulties in the way that we—and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman—would like.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Six o'clock.